What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
More meaningless quotes when no answers are available for what was asked.
The superstitious preaching to their own choir is quite the bore.
What can I say?
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
|
The Bhagavad-Gita.
|
|
|
|
Chapter VII
|
|
|
|
I referred to them when I mentioned flawed premises. That area has been accessed by missionaries for a long time. But as I stated, in general, not knowing is sufficient. But they know, at least, right from wrong whatever that may be. They are not excused from those, which are probably prohibitions of theft, prevarication, and murder.
What amazes me are haughty sweeping generalizations, laced with subjective "factual" certainty and opinionated judgments of those who don't share their beliefs, unfailing invoked to avoid answering direct questions.
It's nothing personal. When you leave them to their own devices, they turn on each other with equal vigor and vile, "blessing" other religions and believers with equal "compliments". Just as they know your beliefs are absolutely wrong, they know all other beliefs are equally wrong too, except theirs.
They have this knowledge that they are the lucky ones who have been pulled by a divine tractor beam into the world of revealed truth and communicate with their deity directly via their private 1-800-call-God line for all the answers to the secrets of the world. Gnosticism is alive and well.
So, they are guaranteed saved outside of faith in particular dogma, correct? Provided they do not murder, lie or steal. If a majority of such tribals do not steal, lie or murder, they are automatically saved by the reason of ignorance. Correct?
So, what does this “prove” Elsie?
Sounds to me as if you're projecting your own anxieties about your future onto "primitive tribes who never heard the gospel."
Who might "feel guilt or anxiety"; the primitive tribes who "never heard the gospel", or those who deliberately reject what they heard?
Superstitious primitive groups ("regressives" who call themselves "progressives"), who have rejected what they heard, preach a primitive, un-civilized "evil-eye" gospel of envy. They aren't envious because they are primitive, but primitive because they are envious. Authority ranking is how tribes function ... Know your place, obey orders, and hail to the chief.
In America we have a particular political party that perfectly represents this primitive mind-set.
The most dangerous stage in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the power of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them. --F.A.Hayek
HERE: Dr. Robert Godwin, Ph.D <>
Christianity is obviously fundamentally complete and needs no other revelation to complete it. It is missing nothing.
It is simply a truism that no one is more blind to his Christian assumptions than the anti-Christian atheist who is the beneficiary of 2000 years of Christian conditioning.
Thus, he values all of the precious things that uniquely developed in the Judeo-Christian West and nowhere else: democracy, individuality, liberty, science, freedom of conscience, etc, but then attacks the metaphysical roots of these things -- as if any of them were developed by atheists living in purely secular cultures.
In reality, the most atheistic cultures are tied (or is it hanged?) neck and neck with Islam for producing the most cruel and barbaric cultures (with the possible exception of primitive tribes)...."
(In the past, I have recommended Gil Baile's brilliant Violence Unveiled, which traces the profound anthropological consequences of the Christian revelation, which, in a certain very real sense, was the "cure" for religion -- including bad forms of Christianity). ...
Hard to say; but, if one believes what is written in Romans...
Oh, well, if he says it is, then it must be so! Obviosuly..../s
nothing; other than GOD does things in a BIG way!
(Relative to ME, anyway.)
Verbose ramblings notwithstanding, the point in citing the example of the stranded tribals is to prove an exception to the rule established by religious dogma. If the said dogma cannot accommodate or account for this exception, then the dogma is rendered false and therefore, flawed.
You don’t have to go on carrying out an insult tirade. Simply answering the specific questions asked will suffice. Why is this so hard to do?
... that they are saved without faith?
This "proves" that God does things in a big way? Yet he made us in his image smaller than the speck of dust?
(Relative to ME, anyway.)
Well, that fair, Elsie. I think you should have mentioned that in the first place.
Some people are offended by difficult questions, JCB, especially if such questions bring into question sweeping generalizaitons. They are not used to it.
No, I haven’t.
Faith though threat, that’s what they all seek, or have been chained by. Hence the meaningless, insult-laden verbosity.
It is not an automatic thing they are still judged.
Now I get to ask you a question or two. What is "Ignorantia juris non excusat"? What are your feelings on illegal immigration?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.