The Descent of Michael Medved

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
No, it’s a factual statement about denominational beliefs.
[/quote]

No, it’s not.

You are conflating “evangelicals” with “fundamentalists”. But I’m not even sure your description applies to all or most “fundamentalists”. And it doesn’t matter if they perform infant Baptism or not. They don’t necessarily “hate” someone just because they haven’t accept Christ yet. And that’s one reason they evangelize-- to spread the word so that non-believers will accept Christ.

You took off on a very broad, ill defined post early in this thread, and went on to make sweeping, bigoted statements about people you’ve never met. But I shouldn’t be surprised, and I’m not going to argue with you over this. You’ve done this (and been pitted multiple times for doing it, btw) too many times and I know you won’t admit to making a mistake.

62

[QUOTE=John Mace]
No, it’s not.
[/quote]
Yes it is, dude. Sorry to disappoint you. I do know what I’m talking about here.

No I’m not. I do know the difference. You were apparently uninformed about evangelical beliefs. That’s ok.

It probably doesn’t, but I didn’t say it did. I said it applies to most evangelicals, and it does.

It does in the context of the question that you asked me. You asked me if evangelicals hated their babies before they were baptized. I informed you that most evangelicals don’t practice infant baptism and don’t believe babies go to hell. You have repeatedly called me a bigot simply for enlightening you about denominational beliefs.

If they don’t hate them then why do they think they deserve to be eternally tortured and denied entrance to Heaven?

You are completely full of crap this time, John. I made no bigoted statements at all. I expressed an opinion about what evangelicals themselves say they believe…and what the hell makes you think I’ve never met them? I was raised in a dual tradition, Catholic and Southern Baptist. My mother’s whole side of the family is nothing but evangelicals. One of my brothers is an evangelical. I’ve spent a good part of my life arguing with those people. It’s already evident from this thread that I knew at least one thing about them that you didn’t know.

63

Everybody should be Jewish. It’s better that way.

64

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Everybody should be Jewish. It’s better that way.
[/QUOTE]

Everyone someday will be if the prophecies are correct.

65

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Everyone someday will be if the prophecies are correct.
[/QUOTE]

Cool. Is there a timetable?

66

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Yes it is, dude. Sorry to disappoint you. I do know what I’m talking about here.

No I’m not. I do know the difference. You were apparently uninformed about evangelical beliefs. That’s ok.
[/quote]

Dude, the term “evangelical” is hardly well defined. Over 25% of all Americans self-identify as "evangelical. Link.

Eh. You weaseled “most” in later, but have offered not one shred of evidence that you know what you’re talking about.

Pffft. There are over 75 million evangelicals in the US. Exactly how many have you met? Not even .01% of them. You are a bigot. You have demonstrated that over and over again on this board. I’m calling you on it, dude. You may be smart, but you’re still a bigot.

67

Can we go back to making fun of Michael Medved and those loons he is working for now.

68

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Dude, the term “evangelical” is hardly well defined. Over 25% of all Americans self-identify as "evangelical. Link.
Eh. You weaseled “most” in later, but have offered not one shred of evidence that you know what you’re talking about.
[/quote]

I didn’t “weasel” in anything. I said all along that I was talking about the denominations which think that Jews go to Hell. Here is your evidence

Speaking from my personal experience with Southern Baptists, I know for a fact that they reject infant baptism and that they don’t think babies go to Hell. It’s true that “evangelical” is not a clearly defined word and that’s why I tried to qualify it somewhat. The conservative, mostly fundamentalist, fire and brinstone types.

It isn’t necessary to meet them all to know what their official doctrines are and to form an opinion about them.

By the way, Renob said, "Evangelicals feel anyone who isn’t “born again” isn’t going to Heaven, be they Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, etc. "
Isn’t that a sweepimng statem,ent about evangelicals? Why aren’t you attacking him? Those beliefs – if taken exactly as Renob has expressed them – are bigoted and hostile. You can’t say that believing people who disagree with you deserve to be tortured ins’t hostile. It is. And it isn’t “bigoted” to say so.

Bigoted against who and in favor of what, exactly?

69

[QUOTE=Zebra]
Can we go back to making fun of Michael Medved and those loons he is working for now.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry. It’s hard to let unfounded accusations of bigotry go by unchallenged.

Yes Medved is an idiot and always has been. When I was a kid I had his Golden Turkey book and thought it was kind of amusing. He should have stuck with that and not tried to form opinions about anything real.

70

I saw Medved denounce evolution and “materialism” on some panel show about ten years ago. It’s not a new position.

I know this is unfounded and unfair, but I get a huge closet case vibe from him.

71

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Liberal, I’m a physicist. With all due respect, you aren’t going to teach me anything about physics. You understand it better than most people who haven’t studied it, but I have studied it. If Jesus had “command over the quantum world” (which is a nonsensical statement, btw, even if I think know what you’re trying to say), it would still be detectable. Quantum mechanics is non-intuitive, but it isn’t as problematic as you imply. And it can’t be used to explain Jesus’ miracles.
[/QUOTE]
With all due respect right back, two things: (1) I never said it would be undetectable — in fact, I said the opposite, that science would detect something had happened, just not necessarily completely how, just as it now detects a particle but not necessarily where it came from or is going to; and (2) “I’ve learnt more than you” is not a sufficient argument inasmuch as it counters no claim that I have made. If you want to have a monologue, go ahead. But if you’re going to ask me questions, then deal with the answers as they’re given. Not ones that you make up.

Incidentally, the phrase “command over the quantum world” is coherent. It simply means the ability to supply values for variables, much in the way that you have command over a probability distribution which, after all, is all the universe is.

72

So this golfer guy goes to Hell, and he deserves it, for sure - greed, adultery, really bad puns…

Anyway, he’s all bummed, and stuff. Then the Devil pops up next to him, takes one look, and says “Yeah, I know, you’ve heard all the stories, look, relax, ain’t so.”

The damned golfer (I mean, this specific damned golfer) is naturally wary, he’s heard all the stories, figures the Devil is just jerking his chain, and the Devil sighs deep and says:

“I know, I know. Look, let me prove it. What did you like best about Earth?”

“Well, golf, I guess.”

The Devil brightens up, says “Me, too! Made my own golf course, wanna check it out?”

Bing, flash of light, there they are on the first tee, and man, its gorgeous. Its got trees, and a light breeze, the fairway looks like its maintained with tweezers… Fantastic. So what the hey, he starts to play, starts really digging it, thinking, heck, maybe not so bad.

On the eighth hole, he slices way into the woods, but goes off in search. He wanders for a while, comes to this big solid stone wall, about eight feet high. He thinks he can hear something, but he isn’t sure, climbs a tree to get a look…and there it is. Hell, the fire, the brimstone, souls shrieking in torment as vicious devils spear them with flaming pitchforks…

“You fucking asshole! Bad enough I gotta be here, you gotta get some extra sadism out of it, telling me all these lies, I’ve seen over the wall, I know what’s really going on, so don’t try to…”

“Look, calm down, take it easy. That’s the Baptists. They insist on that shit.”

73

[QUOTE=Liberal]
… a probability distribution which, after all, is all the universe is.
[/QUOTE]

That is either really, really deep, or total horseshit. Depending, I suppose, on whether the cat is dead, or not.

74

[QUOTE=elucidator]
That is either really, really deep, or total horseshit. Depending, I suppose, on whether the cat is dead, or not.
[/QUOTE]
I wish I could take credit for it. “The atoms or the elementary particles are not real; they form a world of potentialities and possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” — Werner Heisenberg

75

Too many for me. I fold.

Back to MM. I’ve listened to him quite a bit, I have a morbid curiosity about wing-nut talk shows, he’s a very slick article. Any weasel can weaselthink, but Medved is an ermine, he is one smoothie. His argumentative style is to force his opponent to accept some minor point as a fact, then he blows up that triviality into proof, like inflating a Japenese condom to a dirigible. And he’s good at it, give him that.

But the subject of this thread brings up something I’ve spent some time awondering. Is the right-wingnut talkie ecosystem more competitive than before? I can think of at least ten wingnut talkers off the top of my head, with no more substantial differences between them than between Tweedledum and Tweedletardo.

It sure seems a bountiful environment, able to sustain mediocrities like Hannity and Ingraham, as well as rock stars like Rushbo, the Orca of the Air. And even as the right falls on harder times, there doesn’t seem to be any “shaking out”, you don’t see any of them standing by the roadside with signs saying “Will lie for food!”.

So I’m wondering, if anyone knows, if the recent poltical shifts have had any noticeable effect on the eonomics of the radio wingnut? And if not (as it seems) howcum?

76

Who’s Harry?
There’s a Bruce on that linked page, but no Harry.

77

Dio, as others have pointed out, you simply do not know what you are talking about. You may think you know something about evangelicals or fundamentalists by talking to some relatives, but you clearly don’t know much about theology (or the people to whom you talk don’t know much about theology).

For example, you claim:

That’s just wrong. Evangelicals and fundamentalists (and I am painting with a broad brush here) believe in original sin. And, if really pressed, believe that unsaved children go to hell. No one is in heaven except those who accept Christ as savior. Kids, even if they are below the age of consent, who die without being saved are in hell. It’s not often discussed and many people who haven’t thought through the implications of their theology try to get around it, but that’s the inevitable end of their views on the role of Christ in salvation.

Your repeated description of the evangelical or fundamentalist view of hell is a bit off. You continually say that these folks hate all unbelievers because they are sinners and deserve to go to hell. Actually, they feel compassion for these folks and want to enlighten them about how to get to heaven. Caring about sinners and working to help them is a core belief in evangelical circles. That is pretty far from hate. And it has nothing to do with hatred of a specific ethnic group. If Jews are going to hell, they are going to hell the same way as anyone who isn’t a believer. Treating Jews the same as other people seems to be the opposite of anti-semitism.

I don’t think you really have thought about it. I’m not wrong.
[/QUOTE]

78

[QUOTE=Renob]
That’s just wrong. Evangelicals and fundamentalists (and I am painting with a broad brush here) believe in original sin. And, if really pressed, believe that unsaved children go to hell.
[/quote]

This is false. They do not believe that children before the age of accountability go to hell and they do not believe in infant baptism. You are simply wrong.

You need to look into some official doctrines. You are misinformed.

And I’m saying I don’t buy this line of crap for a second. Anyone who believes that another person deserves torture has no business saying they feel compassion for that person.

79

That’s the most distressing thing about Dio’s posts. They are sweeping proclamations based on extremely limited research (he dismisses all opposition as hacks and “fundies” while calling his own sources scholars). I’ve appealed to him repeatedly about this, but he not only doesn’t intend to qualify his statements, he doesn’t even see that there is a problem. I’m pretty much just paying him no attention at this point unless I see something that is so egregious that I feel compelled to set the record straight. (Like the Jews condemned to hell nonsense.)

80

[QUOTE=Liberal]
That’s the most distressing thing about Dio’s posts. They are sweeping proclamations based on extremely limited research (he dismisses all opposition as hacks and “fundies” while calling his own sources scholars). I’ve appealed to him repeatedly about this, but he not only doesn’t intend to qualify his statements, he doesn’t even see that there is a problem. I’m pretty much just paying him no attention at this point unless I see something that is so egregious that I feel compelled to set the record straight. (Like the Jews condemned to hell nonsense.)
[/QUOTE]

You get upset because you don’t really understand the difference between peer-reviewed scholarship and faith-based apologia. I seldom present anything but the mainstream scholarly view. That means I avoid more radical stuff like Jesus Mythicism too, but you just get bent out of shape when I tell you something as uncontroversial as the fact that there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus.

Ironically, Renob is making more sweeping (not mention erroneous) pronouncements than I am, yet he’s getting a free pass in this thread.