If there is one thing which has been proved by the ongoing “works-vs.-faith” debate between Larry Maguet, Virginia Van Ostrand and I, it is that, once again, Bible scripture can be selectively quoted to reinforce any assertion or position, with directly-contradicting, equally-opposing verses. This was amply demonstrated by all parties.
But the net sum of the “works-vs.-faith” argument, as argued from Van Ostrand's and Maguet's side, is both morally hollow and treacherously misleading in how it undermines the accepted basis for what both Society and conventional belief has already determined what makes a person “good.”
In their view, it is only one#'s unswerving faith in Jesus and his imagined presence (which assumes the Christian faith), which renders a person good, as if one could not be good if one were, say, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or, God forbid, a non-believer!
Can someone tell me how this view is no arrogant, xenophobic, proud and exclusionary to a great mass of Humanity? In its worst expression, this compels the most ardent to self-segregate themselves from, and hold in contempt, others not of their ilk.
Is this really something that we should be still teaching children in this so highly polarized age?
Furthermore, good morals come from good parenting, period.
Without that, telling someone who might otherwise be a borderline sociopath that all they need to do to be “saved” in the end is to profess a belief in Jesus is just plain irresponsible and dangerous.
A study recently published in the academic “Journal of Religion and Society” found that “within the U.S. the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west have markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.”
Is it any wonder why?
Karl Logan
Auburn
In their view, it is only one#'s unswerving faith in Jesus and his imagined presence (which assumes the Christian faith), which renders a person good, as if one could not be good if one were, say, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or, God forbid, a non-believer!
Can someone tell me how this view is no arrogant, xenophobic, proud and exclusionary to a great mass of Humanity? In its worst expression, this compels the most ardent to self-segregate themselves from, and hold in contempt, others not of their ilk.
Is this really something that we should be still teaching children in this so highly polarized age?
Furthermore, good morals come from good parenting, period.
Without that, telling someone who might otherwise be a borderline sociopath that all they need to do to be “saved” in the end is to profess a belief in Jesus is just plain irresponsible and dangerous.
A study recently published in the academic “Journal of Religion and Society” found that “within the U.S. the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west have markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.”
Is it any wonder why?
Karl Logan
Auburn




The Citizens' Say
There are 9 comment(s)
karl L wrote on Oct 2, 2007 11:41 AM:
atlopinon wrote on Oct 2, 2007 10:30 AM:
karl L wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:58 PM:
karl L wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:51 PM:
atlopinon wrote on Oct 1, 2007 4:29 PM:
DD wrote on Oct 1, 2007 12:36 PM:
karl L wrote on Sep 30, 2007 10:57 AM:
rd wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:54 AM:
cm wrote on Sep 30, 2007 9:16 AM: