> Since the reality of Jesus Christ has been a topic on this List of late,
> this is not as off-topic as it otherwise might have been.
> It seem that the movie star and radical feminist Jane Fonda has actually
> become a Christian!
> Check out:
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/news2-01142000.htm ... January 14,
> 2000. Jane Fonda becomes a born-again Christian. By Robert Stacy McCain
> THE WASHINGTON TIMES Jane Fonda has become a born-again
> Christian, enthusiastic in her newly found faith, and her conversion is
> making waves from Atlanta to Hollywood.. She's regularly attending
> church services and Bible studies in Atlanta, and one friend calls her
> "very real, very deep."
> It proves once again that beauty, brains, and money is not enough.
> It also proves once again what the article's last paragraph says:
> "Nobody is beyond the grace of God," says Mr. Baehr. "That's why Jesus
> died for the sinners, not for the righteous....Nobody is beyond God's
> whom God decides to call into His kingdom."
How does it prove this?
I'm wondering what reasoning could possibly make this seem like a proof of
anything other than that Ms. Fonda, for whatever reasons, possibly ones
having nothing to do with cognition of facts, has changed her beliefs. If
she took up a belief in Quetzalcoatl, would Mr. Baehr be saying: "Nobody is
beyond the grace of Quetzalcoatl"?
I suppose so.
One of the nice things about the epistemology of Stephen Jones is that you
can prove anything you want with it. Or, more accurately, anything *Stephen*
wants, because his epistemology is apparently little more than the rule:
If it seems intuitively true to me, then it must be true.
But, since this is obviously not universalizable, we have to translate it
into the form:
If it seems intuitively true to a person, then it must be true.
We need not worry that this leads to contradictions in knowledge (often
within one person's own "knowledge," but most obviously between his
"knowledge" and the "knowlege" of others), because, we can all simply say,
"Well that other person's knowledge doesn't seem true to me, so it must be
Or, does Stephen perhaps have some truly essential and rationally
significant (in this context) difference between God and Quetzalcoatl that
makes Ms. Fonda's belief in the one rational and belief in the other
irrational? I doubt it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 19 2000 - 18:59:36 EST