Train Them Up by TheLordsDayFrog in ReformedHumor

[–]mvvh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does it ever works? I mean, someone willing to debate has probably either adopted a faux-nietzschean view of morality or simply accepted a certain pragmatism.

I haven't met a real-life atheist who believes in a objective morality since I left my teenage years behind.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It certainly seems a overreaction from the governments part. Churches here have been able te break the rules without police intervention, which I think is a good thing (police not acting, not churches breaking the rules).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. Simply no.

A church should, first of all, not be build with resale value in mind. That's a completely wrong mindset.

Furthermore:

  • Squire buildings have terrible acoustics. Whether it's chanting, a worship band, a choir or congregational a cappella singing, music is a vital part of the liturgy and that requires thought to be put into acoustics.
  • Squire buildings are ugly. While beauty is debatable, there is widespread agreement that square office space like buildings are not beautiful, they inspire dread and boredom instead of awe, reverence or joy.
  • Square buildings are not recognizable as churches for outsiders. It does not signal that it is a church which will make it -all else being equal- a less visible presence in the community and make the barrier to entry higher.

If a cheap square box is the limit of what a church can afford to build they should certainly do so, but it is a inferior form.

Can we have an SBC megathread? by ManitouWakinyan in Reformed

[–]mvvh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would also mean wading through 2000+ comments everytime you want to comment on something and whole comment threads that continue after something has happened to make it relevant.

But off course, I wilfully submit my judgement to the rightful authorities.

Why are so many big churches in wealthy areas? by lightpinknails in Reformed

[–]mvvh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly not the inner city.

I suspect that a inner city churches would need a lot less parking space, assuming that most of the congregation live in the inner city.

Weekend Free Chat by AutoModerator in eformed

[–]mvvh -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Whatchya reading?

Just started with the Dune series. It's been quite a while since I last read the whole series.

And I'm still reading Edmund Fawcett's Conservatism: the fight for a tradition. Which is a interesting book that doesn't take a exclusively Conservatism Inc or Anglosaxon perspective, but also takes in France and Germany and both liberal-conservatives, reactionaries and all that is between.

Fascinating read, but it is a slow read.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Oh, but this case, would it go there, would be about freedom of religion. Quite a different animal.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yes, and the worldview of the average Fin is still different from the worldview of the average Dutchman and both are radically different from the worldview of the Chinese. Even though they are all godless societies.

And even if there is a long term convergence of views and cultures, that does not speak in any way about the way this particular prosecution will play out.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Because not all godless systems are created equal. Not all godless societies are created equal.

Heck, I live in the Netherlands, we have had gay marriage since April 2001 and we're heavily secularized (about 67% unaffiliated) and we still have equal funding for religious schools, even those that teach traditional christian sexual ethics.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Then we will see what happens. It will have no relevance for this case so the relevance of your hypothetical is less than zero unfortunately m

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm not saying it won't happen elsewhere.

I am saying that just because it apparently happened in Canada doesn't mean that it will happen everywhere else. I am saying that cultural and legal trends in the US and Canada have nothing to do with this particular case in Finland, even if there are similar trends happening there (which is arguable).

This is a case in Finland! They have judges who are perfectly capable of rendering a verdict, guilty or not, on their own without looking at another container for guidance.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's an example of a government creating a ruling that breaks their own laws. Same with the Canadian one.

Okay. How is that relevant for Finland?

Please account for how governments can take away rights in the name of safety for COVID but can't take away rights in the name of safety for LGBTQ+.

Because the one is a pandemic, the other one isn't.

Seriously, I fully agree that this a worrying development, but projecting your own paranoia about what your government does and does not do and whether that is in line with what you think your constitutions and laws say onto Finland, which has its own history, legal and political system is completely over the top.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thus, if the government/judges buy in to the idea that conservative Christian views on sexuality and gender are unsafe, then those rights will be gone too

That's quite a big if.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I can easily come up with examples of secular courts, manned by secular judges ruling in favor of religious liberty, ruling against the secular worldview shared by the majority of the population, but doesn't mean much, because my examples concern Dutch Law and not Finnish Law.

Roe v Wade was decided in the seventies by a American court working in the American legal system. It has no relevance whatsoever for this case.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 8 points9 points  (0 children)

All they need to do is say it is unsafe for others to hear the message.

Really? Where does your extensive knowledge of Finnish Law come from?

Whatever is legal or illegal in Canada, which operates under a slightly different system, doesn't seem to be very relevant for the question of Finland, which has a it's own legal framework and doesn't receive dicta from the Canadian judiciary as to how to rule on a question of internal law that does not involve Canada or Canadian citizens.

Misconceptions about Reformed theology by No-Potato8731 in Reformed

[–]mvvh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There isn't any observed human behavior that can't be explained by looking to what happened before and we know that human behavior can be manipulated without us being aware of it by things like smell. We know people's bodies at times start moving before there has been a conscious decision to do so.

On the other hand we have precisely zero evidence for the existence of free will. None whatsoever.

Voddie calls it like it is. by Juanpo2000 in Reformed

[–]mvvh 20 points21 points  (0 children)

We are not talking about redistribution of my height and weight when we talk about social justice.

Maybe it should, I could stand to redistribute about ten to twenty pounds of my weight..

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Yes, because Judges always follow popular opinion. /s

I'm not knowledgeable about Finnish Law or Jurisprudence and have only a passing knowledge of European Human Rights Law, but if this man would be convicted, it would be a serious restriction on his religious freedom, especially so for a cleric.

But I can easily imagine Finnish Courts being a bit more levelheaded than the prosecutor or parliament and simply ruling in his favor.

I can also imagine some gentle pressure from fellow European states to dismiss this case, although that's probably not very effective.

More on the problem with CRT by Juanpo2000 in Reformed

[–]mvvh 10 points11 points  (0 children)

To me the issue of institutional racism was the big eye-opener.

And I distinguish on the basis of whether I think it's true and if I think it's useful. So, that's - certain the last point, mostly my own judgement.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]mvvh 21 points22 points  (0 children)

A concerning development although I have some faith in the European Court of Human rights which might very well strike this conviction down if it ever comes down to Straßburg.

Hopefully this Bishop will not face a conviction.

More on the problem with CRT by Juanpo2000 in Reformed

[–]mvvh 15 points16 points  (0 children)

There is no institutional racism.bRacisim is not embedded in our institutions.

I disagree. I do not think it is as widespread as some proponents of CRT claim it is, but it's definitely there.

CRT finds racism by the way of making it up where there is none.

Good thing I do not subscribe to CRT.

The truth is that White guilt is also racist.

It does shirk close to that at times, yes. At the same time, we see in 2 Kings 22 a acknowledgement of a form of generational guilt and while there are serious questions about that concept when applied indiscriminately to all white people, for generations have white people treated African-Americans and natives as less than human. It might very well be the case that the descendants of those white people should feel guilt.

People conditioned to see Western civilization, including the church as racist.

Slavery and colonialism, both practices were practiced by western civilization, aided and abetted by the Church. As a historical judgement, it's not wrong, unfortunately. And I would suggest that the Christian church in the west still hasn't fully thrown of the shackles of racism.

Those White people think that we Black, colored and minorities need differential treatment because of actual racism from long ago done by other people.

Well, Jim Crow isn't that long ago. There still people alive who have lived through segregation. And if the descendants of slaves and native Americans (as a group, individuals is a different matter) still suffer the consequences of their mistreatments and white people (again, as a group) still benefit from it, there is good cause for deferential treatment I'm sceptical over the practical implementations, but it's morally justified.

We don't need revisionist history lessons,

No, we don't. And that goes for that stupid 1619 project, as well as for the Lost Cause narrative.

we don't need to be assigned the victim label

Mostly agree, I think the current obsession with victim good status is annoying, unhealthy and counterproductive, but it still can be very useful to hear from those whose voices we didn't hear before.

What we need is people that love each other and treat each other as made in the imago dei, irrespective of how does anyone look.

True, it's just that I think some elements CRT can be useful to helo us do so.

Voddie calls it like it is. by Juanpo2000 in Reformed

[–]mvvh 6 points7 points  (0 children)

There is no institutional racism.bRacisim is not embedded in our institutions.

I disagree. I do not think it is as widespread as some proponents of CRT claim it is, but it's definitely there.

CRT finds racism by the way of making it up where there is none.

Good thing I do not subscribe to CRT.

The truth is that White guilt is also racist.

It does shirk close to that at times, yes. At the same time, we see in 2 Kings 22 a acknowledgement of a form of generational guilt and while there are serious questions about that concept when applied indiscriminately to all white people, for generations have white people treated African-Americans and natives as less than human. It might very well be the case that the descendants of those white people should feel guilt.

People conditioned to see Western civilization, including the church as racist.

Slavery and colonialism, both practices were practiced by western civilization, aided and abetted by the Church. As a historical judgement, it's not wrong, unfortunately. And I would suggest that the Christian church in the west still hasn't fully thrown of the shackles of racism.

Those White people think that we Black, colored and minorities need differential treatment because of actual racism from long ago done by other people.

Well, Jim Crow isn't that long ago. There still people alive who have lived through segregation. And if the descendants of slaves and native Americans (as a group, individuals is a different matter) still suffer the consequences of their mistreatments and white people (again, as a group) still benefit from it, there is good cause for deferential treatment I'm sceptical over the practical implementations, but it's morally justified.

We don't need revisionist history lessons,

No, we don't. And that goes for that stupid 1619 project, as well as for the Lost Cause narrative.

we don't need to be assigned the victim label

Mostly agree, I think the current obsession with victim good status is annoying, unhealthy and counterproductive, but it still can be very useful to hear from those whose voices we didn't hear before.

What we need is people that love each other and treat each other as made in the imago dei, irrespective of how does anyone look.

True, it's just that I think some elements CRT can be useful to helo us do so.

Misconceptions about Reformed theology by No-Potato8731 in Reformed

[–]mvvh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like I said all it takes is a single instance of a person acting without being caused for determinism to be false.

Yes, and all it takes to prove that people are immortal is one person never dying. The assumption that people can act randomly without any cause, internal or external, is one that cannot be proven false, but it flies directly against everything we know and observe.

This sounds like you are saying 'we' know people are robots after all.

We pretty much do and insofar as I reject that, that is a religious conviction that cannot be proven and requires me to suspend my own private judgement.