Jump to content

Nick the Nevermet

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Nick the Nevermet last won the day on November 23 2011

Nick the Nevermet had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

31 Very Good

About Nick the Nevermet

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    East Coast

Recent Profile Visitors

561 profile views
  1. Indeed. Labels can be useful sometimes and problems others.
  2. Hello. I was around here years ago. I'm poking my nose back in now. Hope you're all well. As for a little about me, I think the labels of progressive and Presbyterian both apply to me. And yes, I believe that progressive Christianity is compatible with the tradition of the Reformed, Presbyterian, or "Calvinist". Which makes me fun at parties
  3. Two Friars and a Fool did thing a few years back, 95 theses against Hell. In short, they couldn't bring themselves, on Christian principles, to accept the idea of eternal conscious torment as a punishment a just god would inflict on anyone, let alone someone who is merely a nonbeliever. Here's a link There are lots of different ideas about the afterlife that have come from mainstream sources within Christianity. Universalism is one. Karl Barth, one of the greatest Reformed theologians of the 20th Century, promoted it, and the Orthodox had apocatastasis, which is effectively the
  4. hi. I just (yes, just) read George's PM to me. Sorry I dropped off the radar, as the story is neither short nor particularly interesting. Suffice to say there was some good, some bad, but mostly "interesting times". Regarding the NT Wright book, The New Testament and the People of God: I've given up on getting a straight answer from the publisher about a Kindle edition. If anything, things are going in the wrong direction: when I started the discussion about reading books from his Christian Origins and the Question of God Series, volume of it was available (it wasn't the first). Now,
  5. I partly disagree with your assessment of that thread, Yvonne. The original post was an invitation to theologize. There's really no other way to describe a post where someone offers a list of statements in a logical sequence and asks for people to comment on them. The fact that the thread remained about analysis should, IMHO, neither be a problem, nor be seen as a mistake. Given the lack of information in the original post about either the conversation in question or the poster's opinions, it is pretty reasonable how people reacted. We'll see how he reacts. And as I can remember all o
  6. In that case, I think I misread your posts, or at least their subtext. As I read your posts, you seemed to have been making a moral (rather than empirical) argument that there really are some universal moral ideals, and this is good, and they are embedded in our biology.
  7. We have a few that could come close, depending on context. On another board I frequent, people have resorted to posting sarcasm in bright magenta, because so many people were getting banned for what they thought were obvious jokes.
  8. George, I've been trying to figure out a good way to ask something. This is the best I've got. How does your interest in neuroscience and the arguments based on it avoid the naturalistic fallacy? The naturalistic fallacy is when "a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.)" (quote from the wikipedia page). I'm not a philosopher, and I may be mixing up the naturalistic fallacy, appeal to nature, and the is-ought problem. However
  9. There are other people who can talk better than I can about how to act if one has pre-existing ties or is in a community/church of conservative Christians. As someone who is not, the most I can usually do is point out the categories don't line up with as much certainty as some would like. History matters in ways that erode the unproblematic faith of traditionalist Christianity. One can in fact be moral without being Christian, or even a theist. Gay people can be good parents, and so on. All of those statements are things I can back up empirically with evidence and research. But the
  10. I realize you want to talk about the bold red ones, but I think the first 4 are extremely important, and not givens. First, we have a lot of people here who are atheists and oriented around process theology. The omnipotence assumption is contestable in this forum. Second, we also have more than a few universalists here, so the issue of Hell isn't settled either. Also, while they don't post here, there are plenty of hardcore Calvinists who believe God chooses some to be Damned. Again, I realize you want to get to the tricky stuff, but those unproblematic assumptions are not necessari
  11. Well, that was frustrating. Augsberg Fortress has now missed the date the Kindle edition would be released twice, and their support people "have no new information." Sorry all for the wild goose chase.
  12. If morality is a human thing (be it "constructed", something that exists within biological/environmental parameters, or something else), does that suggest God is beyond good and evil?
  13. taking time off from this forum for Thanksgiving and getting caught up on work and wow... this thread has grown substantially since then.
  14. Yeah, there is a whole mess of other factors at play in these situations, and I'd look sideways at anyone who claimed to have made an effective predictive model. Also, to be clear about something: I like tolerance. I support religious diversity in our society, multicultural concerns in the classroom, etc. I don't want anyone to take my empirical statement that diversity is challenging as a moral claim that diversity is somehow wrong.
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service