Thread: Hell: Do I have to share heaven with this guy? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000313

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
I've been sitting on this for a few weeks, wanting to rant but unable to find suitable words.

I have a guilty secret: every now and then, I take a twisted, perverse pleasure in looking over Jack Chick's web site. Do you remember coming across those little tracts when you were a kid? I was given a few at scripture class in school, by one of the ladies who went to the church I went to for Sunday School. They were compelling little things, and they still are, in their own whacky way.

But I can't handle this.. This is Chick's latest little masterpiece, and it left me quivering with rage. How can someone, in the name of Jesus Christ, create such poison?

If, by the grace of God, I come to his final banquet, do I get to choose who I sit next to?

I guess I should be praying for him, but please pray for me, because I can't, not yet.

[ 30. September 2005, 20:34: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
That has to be one of the most spiteful, propagandist, plain racist evangelist tools I've seen in a long time. While it may be true that there are groups out there who think like that, it is unfair to present them as wholly representative, and as for his portrait of Christ, well, words fail me. I'm disgusted.
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
I've never come across this. Is it just an Australian thing or have i just been fortunate?
I've looked at the other tracts. There are no words to describe the badness of this.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If he's in Heaven then the other place has distinct attractions.

Vile, obscene and ... and ... no words to to adequately say what I want.
 

---

Posted by pants (# 4487) on :
 
there are not words to describe how bad that is.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I feel sick. Heaven is where this hate-monger is not.
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
See, I know it's not my place to judge. There is a God, and I am not Him. I do hope, really I do, that everyone comes to the Resurrection.

But how do I recognise this as the work of someone who is trying, in their own broken way, to serve the same Lord I am trying to?

I really did recoil from this, this thing when I read it. It's the most evil thing I've seen in a long time.
 

---

Posted by melonman (# 4038) on :
 
Yes, it's appalling, but is it different in type to the kind of comments made by more than one American Christian leader in the aftermath of 9-11? For example, Franklin Graham: "We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion." In the NBC report, Graham said, "I don't believe this [Islam] is this wonderful, peaceful religion."

And when I said to an American colleague that this seemed like an odd way for an evangelist to proceed, he told me that I hated America and wouldn't talk to me for the next year...
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
There's a theory that everyone is trying to serve God, in his/her twisted way. So maybe this is just Jack Chick's defect, but everyone else (Paisley, Bin Laden, Hitler, and you and me, everyone) is trying to move towards the light, no matter how badly they may be doing it. And God will doubtless slowly bring them to the right path in the end. Pity him. Love the sinner. But really really hate the sin.
 

---

Posted by Halcyon Sailor (# 5270) on :
 
Yikes... I don't know what disturbs me more, the racist plot or the disturbing last two panels. If this is the the Divine master plan, to quote Tori Amos, maybe next time I'll give a Judas a try.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Huh. When I started a Chick thread in Hell someone moved it to Heaven.

Where does he get the bit about the Bible being banned in Palestine? Or even Muslims never having heard of Jesus?

If it really was true that many Americans believed crap like this about Palestinians then their government's unthinking support for Israeli oppression might be explained.

But I'd hate to think they were so ignorant.

There, that ought to keep this one in Hell a bit longer...
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
Never quote Tori Amos. Not even in jest.
 

---

Posted by Ponty'n'pop (# 5198) on :
 
Anyone who knows their Koran at all knows about Jesus - albeit by his Islamic name of Isa. Just an extract (from The Family of Imran):

[3.59] Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was.
[3.84] Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.


This Chick publication is one of the most obscene I've ever read.
 

---

Posted by Herminator (# 5250) on :
 
Chick really is the pits, I wonder we are even allowed to mention him here! Is there no lower place?
But then, as a young Christian I even gave them away! I am to ashamed for words….

 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Oookay-

Yes, Chick's stuff is cheesy and corny and cartoony and overblown and oversimplified and black-and-white where it's sometimes hard for me to see anything but shades of grey...

But I suppose you think there are no Muslim boys being raised to pretty much have the goal of modern jihad including suicide bombing?

(Hee- this might getcha)

quote:

---

Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following Multiple Choice test. (The events are actual cuts from past history. They actually happened. Do you remember?)


1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by

a. Olga Corbitt
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwartzeneger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


2. In 1979, the U.S.embassy in Iran was taken over by

a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.


3. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by

a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


4. In 1983, 304 people were killed when both the U.S. Marine barracks and the U.S. embassy in Beirut were blown up by

a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by

a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by

a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindbergh
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


7. In 1988, 270 people, including 11 on the ground, where killed when Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by

a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


8. In 1993 the World TradeCenter was bombed the first time by

a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


9. In 1996, nineteen U.S. servicemen were killed when the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, were destroyed from an explosion detonated by

a. Barbra Streisand
b. The boogieman
c. Darth Vader
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


10. In 1998, 224 people were killed when the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by

a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's woman problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


11. In 2000, seventeen U.S. sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole were killed by an explosion from a small fiberglass boat loaded with high explosives detonated by

a. The ACLU
b. A 70 year-old woman on her way to her granddaughter's birthday party.
c. Martha Stewart
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Center and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted to a crash by the passengers.

Thousands of people were killed by

a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


13. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against

a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


14. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by
a. Bonny and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


And, since the litany above was written, add the explosion aboard the French tanker in Yemen and the bombing of the night clubs on the island of Bali, Indonesia, at least.

Nope, I really don't see a pattern here, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans (or we Basic Plain Christians) never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us...

Airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors.

---

And Christians must lovingly stand by and watch people march into Hell without saying a word - because it's mean to disagree with people who are, as best we can tell, outside of the Lord?

AP, et al, is it ALL of that Chickytract y'all disagree with - or just the sarcastic tone?
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Janine, honey, let's not get into a 'who bombed whom?' argument. The USA will come off worst every time, believe me! What this evil sicko is doing in his 'tract' is to portray Islam - essentially a way of peace, and aggressive only when backed into a corner - as evil and damnable. Now after your posting I can fully believe that peacfulness is evil and damnable in your eyes, but the rest of us round here aren't quite so fucking stupid.
 

---

Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
for me it's the pure hatered and insensitivity in the chick tracts.

i've never seen one of these in real life thank god but what i have read of them on the net makes me want to cry.


 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
I understood that Islam wasn't particularly a way of peace, in the sense that Christianity is, but it certainly isn't what Mr. Chick's cartoon portrays. He is showing people as evil, he is grotesquely simplifying both the complexities of theology and the mystery of redemption, and at the end of every fucking tract he is gloating over bad hell-related shit happening to people he doesn't like.
I am appalled. I am further appalled that this is clearly a popular "Christian" resource.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
No one said people haven't taken Christianity or Buddhism or any other religion and twisted it.

No one said my Muslim urologist or cab driver or professor or grocery clerk or student it gonna run around in a dynamite vest and detonator codpiece. Don't be the fuck silly.

(Did I toss that "fuck" in at the right place? )

All I'm trying to say is - that I don't like Chickytracts in general - his theology is wonky IMO -

But so far here I see abhorrence and disagreement and gnashing of teeth that seems to me to be coming from a "how dare he say anything bad about Muslims" position. Please enlighten me if you have another good reason to dislike the tract, cause that one ain't good enough to weigh much.

Heh. Muslims being human, much like Cajuns and Dentists and Lutherans and Ship-o-Fools shipmates... There's plenty to say about the evil some of them do. Just like Protestants and Plumbers and Ship-o-Fools lurkers do evil.

Rather me not talk about it, pumpkin? Rather ol' Chick didn't?

[ 12. December 2003, 15:45: Message edited by: Janine ]
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Janine, love ya, but your quoted quiz could be manipulated not too difficultly to illumine Christians as equally murderous. From the Crusades forward, there is a long, undistinguished list of appaling events in Christian history that are similarly horriffic.

Are suicide bombers being raised from the cradle in some parts of the Islamic world? Sure. Was America attacked on 09/11/01 by radical Islamic terrorists of Arab decent? Sure. Is Islam a religion of peace? Ideally, yes. In practice, though, obviously, not always. Same for Christianity.

Do some find the tract in question offensive? Sure, and there's a good case for why on a number of levels. Is there a grain of truth in it regarding suicide bombing? Of course. Personally, I don't like it as an evangelism tool, but that doesn't negate at least a portion of its scope.

Some of us believe in a physical Heaven, like I do. IMO, I'm pretty sure of one thing regarding Heaven, as well: it's either going to be very crowded, or it won't.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I had to edit to change "Muslins" to "Muslims".



Oh Lord God of Mercy...

Y'all woulda jumped me for making some sort of disparaging remark about traditional Middle Eastern/Muslim dress...
 

---

Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 
Janine, any of us could post a list longer than yours of atrocities committed by young white 'Christian' men, American ones if you like. It wouldn't justify labelling all Christians as ignorant bigots and misrepresenting their beliefs with outright lies.

Yes, young Muslims are raised to be suicide bombers, but not in the moral vaccuum depicted here. Suicide bombings are driven by utter utter desperation in the face of oppression, not just by religious fundamentalism. That doesn't justify them in the slightest, but to show the extremism without looking at the context that inspires it is utterly misleading.

EVERYTHING about this piece is wrong and evil. The facts are grossly distorted or just plain lies. It grossly simplifies an incredibly complex situation in a very one-sided way. It gives no sense of the context it seeks to depict and makes no attempt to see any perspective other than its own. Its theology is abhorrent and massively flawed. And it is utterly hateful and racist.

[ 12. December 2003, 15:55: Message edited by: Space Monkey ]
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Of course, TheRiv, dat's the point. Or one of them. See my post after Adeodatus'.

Oh- and to come out aginst Islam- I'm not even saying Chick did - I'm saying y'all say he did - is NOT a racist thing. You might say it's ethnic maybe. The Faithful come in all flavors, so found Malcom X.

I have to work way too hard to get two brain cells to line up simultaneously to discuss this stuff. Sorry I'm not up to Hellish intelligence standards...

Will prolly bow out now and let y'all all have an agreement-festival, one big circular handshake maybe...

[ 12. December 2003, 15:51: Message edited by: Janine ]
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
When I said,

quote:

---

" He is showing people as evil, he is grotesquely simplifying both the complexities of theology and the mystery of redemption, and at the end of every fucking tract he is gloating over bad hell-related shit happening to people he doesn't like."

---

I wasn't actually referring to Muslims in any way. I was objecting to his overt glee over the damnation of evildoers, according to his podunk theology.

(PS. I would have said, "Don't be fuckingsilly," or even, "Don't be fucking stupid". But now I've heard it I actually prefer 'Don't be the fuck silly'. Can I use it sometime?)
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
Janine, do really need to be told what is basically wrong with that thing? The misrepresentation, the lies, the hate literature within it? The refusal to recognise other human beings as human? The willing compliance with an agenda of propoganda against people who are not fundamentally dissimilar to yourself?

You're smarter than this.
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
<blush>

<looking down at bare toes scuffing black Loosyanna mud>

Chestertonian, I am so pleased it might be of use. Do credit the simple-minded Cajun who thought of it occasionally, OK?

<grin> One gets her immortality where one can.

AP, I KNOW the Chicky materials are insensitive hard wonky things. That's why I would never ever use them. Ever.

Except maybe as baaaaaad examples.

I just wonder what else reads as hard and insensitive and unenlightened these days...

Phrases like "I am the way, the truth..."; "No man comes to the Father but by me..."; "by me, if any man enter in...".

Y'know, all those horrid exclusionary statements some Palestine resident made 2,000 years ago.
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
There is this dilemma in liberal Christianity that we are saying, 'all faiths are equal, etc' but also 'this man was the one true Son of God'. Tricky.
I think it comes down to tolerance.
'Tolerance' does not mean 'you are just as right as I am'.
Tolerance means 'you are wrong, but I'll try to convince you, and not just kill you and raze your cities'.
Islam is false. That's a necessary part of being a Christian.
Muslims are not evil, just mistaken. That's another part.
Everybody is flawed. That's a third part.
 

---

Posted by melonman (# 4038) on :
 
I think Janine has half a point. That scenes not that different to the one in the Chick tract happen in real life seems quite plausible to me: I think I've read stories not that different in Newsweek.

The problem is surely with any sentence that starts "All moslems are...", or "All Christians are..." for that matter. The Chick Tract "all moslems are terrorists" is absurd, but the "all moslems stand for love and peace" thing is a bit dumb too.

A lot of my clients are non-practising moslems. In an effort to make friends with one of them, I asked him if he wanted to see the latest Bond film with me. He looked quite shocked, and said it was far too violent, and that he preferred romances. A bit embarassing really...
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
personally i believe that after we die, we all, you, me, everyone, get a Stern Talking To from Someone.

and i think jack chick is going to have some very unpleasent moments during that discussion.
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Its not just the muslims. Have you read the ones about Roman Catholicism?? Or the terrible tale of little Mildred (The Letter)?

I just can't imagine how this poisonous man can call himself a Christian

Nic
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
If it really was true that many Americans believed crap like this about... But I'd hate to think they were so ignorant.

---

[ 12. December 2003, 16:41: Message edited by: Jerry Boam ]
 

---

Posted by Herminator (# 5250) on :
 
But then, if we did not have Jack we wouldn´t have all those great parodies!
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Its not just the muslims. Have you read the ones about Roman Catholicism?? Or the terrible tale of little Mildred (The Letter)?

I just can't imagine how this poisonous man can call himself a Christian

Nic
 

---

Posted by AdamPater (# 4431) on :
 
A blindingly obvious point just hit me about just what I find so offensive and downright evil about the "Sky lighter" tract: it's the demonisation of "The Other".

A few years ago, John Howard won an election in Australia after a campaign that had a lot to do with refugees/asylum-seekers and "border protection". Much was made of asylum-seekers in leaky boats allegedly throwing their children overboard in an effort to attract the attention and intervention of the Australian Navy. Little mention was made of the details of to whom they were being thrown, and whether the ship was sinking at the time. Even less consideration was given to the fact that parents do not so endanger their children. The whole story was an attempt to dehumanise the asylum-seeker and allow us all to consider them as less than human, and certainly not welcome here. It was a dishonest campaign, unworthy of anyone who would call themselves Christian.

Chick plays the same cards here: parents, grand-parents, human beings that we know, DO NOT behave like this. Therefore these people are sub-human and we may rejoice that they are cast into the lake of fire. This is a blatant effort to dehumanise a whole race of people, arguably on the basis of some understandably desperate adult suicide-bombers, and, possibly some isolated cases of child abuse.

It's sick, and it is not recognisable as the work of the Kingdom of Heaven.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
C'mon, Nic. 'Christian' is as gray a term as ever there was. Everyone can be a Christian these days.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
Islam is false. That's a necessary part of being a Christian.

---

No, it's not. Lots of us manage to be Christians without thinking Islam is false.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Point to ponder:

In many respects Chick is not fundamentally much different from the rest of us. Not one of us -- not one -- deserves even one glimpse of Heaven. Yet the same grace that applies to us also applies to Chick, distasteful to some of us as that may be. How dare we -- as those redeemed from the same Sin -- talk of him as being outside of God's grace, as if he had committed something unforgivable.


[The only unforgiveable sin is fucking up UBB code.]

[ 13. December 2003, 18:39: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I think Chick's tracts are pretty horrible, but I can't wish him (or anyone) to be in Hell.

... PS: I suppose we could do with God (in the form of the Giant, Light-Bulb-Headed Judge (tm) we see in Chick's tracts) giving Chick the "you're-off-to-Hell" speech he so often puts in those tracts -- and then, as Chick wails, God says, "... PSYCH! No, actually, you're forgiven, Jack, I just wanted to see the look on your face..."

[ 12. December 2003, 17:59: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
Islam is false. That's a necessary part of being a Christian.

---

No, it's not. Lots of us manage to be Christians without thinking Islam is false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If you believe Christianity to be true, how on earth can you NOT believe Islam to be false? They make some extremely contradictory claims, and at least one HAS to be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
If you believe Christianity to be true, how on earth can you NOT believe Islam to be false? They make some extremely contradictory claims, and at least one HAS to be wrong.

---

Isn't that just revealing a lack of imagination?

No, I guess not. It might also be revealing a lack of humility. You can choose to believe in something with a leap of faith without knowing for certain. That means not knowing for certain that something contradictory is wrong, and it's possible to find no need to force a belief that it must be so.

---

Well, 'faith' is what: belief w/out evidence. Faith doesn't seek to prove itself, by nature. So, a faith position inChristianity would include by default a lack of 'faith' in Islam. Wouldn't it?
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
The Riv, do you believe absolutely everything that has ever been associated with Christianity, or do you pick and choose? If you aren't a 100% literalist, why isn't it possible to apply the same practice on Islam in the radom elements that don't agree with what you believe? From my point of view, they're virtually identical, with differences of garnish-level significance.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
RooK, if you're going to believe, then believe. In other words, commit to it. Why go through all the trouble of having faith if you're going to say that "well, the next one might be just as good"? That's agnosticism, not Christianity.
 

---

Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
The point is that Christianity (and indeed Islam) commits one to a number of propositional beliefs. To take a fairly uncontroversial one, Christianity asserts that Christ died on the cross. Now Islam, IIRC, asserts that he didn't. A simulcra was crucified in Christ's stead.

Now either of these beliefs may be true but they cannot both be true as a matter of elementary logic.
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that, except for certain core beliefs that we share with Islam, from a Christian perspective, it is in some respects wrong.



My favorite Chick tract is The Death Cookie, which has Satan convincing the Catholic Church to be mysterious and teach transubstantiation in order to enslave everyone. He compares them to the Egyptians. It's great. The priest cackles, "If you don't obey us, we won't let you eat the Jesus Cookie anymore!!"

[ 12. December 2003, 19:39: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by Halcyon Sailor (# 5270) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
The point is that Christianity (and indeed Islam) commits one to a number of propositional beliefs. To take a fairly uncontroversial one, Christianity asserts that Christ died on the cross. Now Islam, IIRC, asserts that he didn't. A simulcra was crucified in Christ's stead.

Now either of these beliefs may be true but they cannot both be true as a matter of elementary logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
OK, I admit to being fundamentally unable to really conceptualize a zealot mindset. Mea culpa.

It all just seems so arbitrary. If you believe in an all-power being, what's stopping it from having two simultaneous truths? Oh, right, your nifty magical book of truth. Hey, wait, don't they have one too?

Never mind. I give up. You're all freaks, every last one of you. I hope you all end up stuck in a very small, crowded afterlife together.

---

quote:

---

Jesus never said, "You have to be a Christian to be saved." In fact, I remember him saying, "Anyone who is not against me is for me."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
OK, I admit to being fundamentally unable to really conceptualize a zealot mindset. Mea culpa.

It all just seems so arbitrary. If you believe in an all-power being, what's stopping it from having two simultaneous truths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Please list two mutually exclusive statements that can be simultaneously true. Or better yet, I'll give you an example and you can explain to me how they both can be true:

1. Jesus was God Incarnate.

2. Jesus was not God Incarnate.

---

quote:

---

Please refer to the use of the term "all powerful" and explain why your supposed god would have to conform to our limited causality and perception of logic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
To quote C.S. Lewis (from memory) "not because it constitutes a limitation to God's omnipotence but because nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when it is talked about God".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
OK, I admit to being fundamentally unable to really conceptualize a zealot mindset. Mea culpa.

---

You may find it helpful to imagine that this is a discussion regarding rival OSs or standards.

"OK but you can't say IEEE 1394 is the best option and say that USB 2.0 is the best option!"

"Look, either BSD is more secure than XP or it's not, don't confuse the issue with talk of patches!"

"You can't have it both ways! If the developer made a crap interface, it isn't fair to blame the user, no matter how clueless the user may be."

I bet that zealot mindset is less inaccessible than you thought...
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Please list two mutually exclusive statements that can be simultaneously true. Or better yet, I'll give you an example and you can explain to me how they both can be true:

1. Jesus was God Incarnate.

2. Jesus was not God Incarnate.

---

Please refer to the use of the term "all powerful" and explain why your supposed god would have to conform to our limited causality and perception of logic. If you want to shoehorn your god into obeying the laws that we perceive, your whole bible thingie starts looking pretty outlandish and stupid.

Which, really, is my viewpoint anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Way to wuss out, RooK. YOU are the one making the statements that something can and cannot be X at the same time, now you get to prove it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
But assuming you believe that Jesus Christ was God Incarnate, who died and rose from the dead, doesn't that sort of limit things vis a vis Islam?

So is Christ God incarnate, or just a really nice man to be esteemed?

If he's God incarnate, doesn't that mean that Islam is wrong about that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But you're STILL wimping out, RooK! I asked you to tell me how Jesus could and could not be God Incarnate, because THAT is a big honking part of the differences in religions. So explain to me how he both could and could not be God Incarnate, if you maintain that one can hold the belief that Islam and Christianity are both true with any sort of intellectual integrity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But you're STILL wimping out, RooK! I asked you to tell me how Jesus could and could not be God Incarnate, because THAT is a big honking part of the differences in religions. So explain to me how he both could and could not be God Incarnate, if you maintain that one can hold the belief that Islam and Christianity are both true with any sort of intellectual integrity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It's traditionally been called seeing through a glass darkly. We're on remarkably thin ice when we make exclusionary truth claims about God.

---

1. Christainity is the only true religion all others are mere devil worship.
2. Christianity is the only true religion others religions see some glimpse of God but they need to be converted to Christianity.
3. Christianity is the most developed religion others are not so developed so people should be converted to christianity but other relgions may take people to heaven (darwin model of religions).
4. Christianity is the most developed religion but Christ works in other faith bringing them to God. Conversion is not that important dialogue is the key for relationships between the faiths.
5. All religions are equal and take people to God but Christ is possibly the supreme messenger amongst others. Dialogue between faiths is the norm conversion from one faith to another is wrong. The true enemy of faith is unfaith and religions should work together to bring kingdom values to the world.

quote:

---

Jesus never said, "You have to be a Christian to be saved." In fact, I remember him saying, "Anyone who is not against me is for me."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I think Chick's tracts are pretty horrible, but I can't wish him (or anyone) to be in Hell.

... PS: I suppose we could do with God (in the form of the Giant, Light-Bulb-Headed Judge (tm) we see in Chick's tracts) giving Chick the "you're-off-to-Hell" speech he so often puts in those tracts -- and then, as Chick wails, God says, "... PSYCH! No, actually, you're forgiven, Jack, I just wanted to see the look on your face..."

---

I'd rather see his face when he gets to heaven, and finds it full of exactly the sort of people he condemned to hell in his tracts.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
It's traditionally been called seeing through a glass darkly. We're on remarkably thin ice when we make exclusionary truth claims about God.

---

Well, what about the part of the Trinity called Christ? There are some fairly specific claims made about him in the NT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I guess I should have qualified my statement, although who knew you'd pull parallel universes out of your butt? According to what you've just said, there is no such thing as an absolute truth Black can never be absolutely black; down can never be absolutely down; you can never be absolutely you. I was not aware that you, of all people, inhabited such a world.

---

quote:

---

Just goes to show you're never safe from being surprised until you're dead.

---

quote:

---

In the real world (i.e., mine), absolute truths do exist. It has jack to do with my perception of the event. To go back to my example -- if Jesus is God Incarnate, he's God Incarnate regardless of the fact that you think it's a load of crap. Your perception has no bearing on the facts at hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And if you think Jesus really said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one cometh to the Father but by me," well, then, we just will have to agree to disagree about the nature of the gospel of John. This is early Christian theology, not words Jesus actually said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And if you think Jesus really said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one cometh to the Father but by me," well, then, we just will have to agree to disagree about the nature of the gospel of John. This is early Christian theology, not words Jesus actually said.

---

You were standing there when he said them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Isn't that just revealing a lack of imagination?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
If you believe in an all-power being, what's stopping it from having two simultaneous truths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Oh, right, your nifty magical book of truth. Hey, wait, don't they have one too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
If statements claiming miraculous contradicions like "a bush that burned and yet was not consumed" or "he died and then was brought back to life" or "fully human and fully god simultaneously" don't make you flinch, what's so difficult about Christianity being true for some and Islam true for others?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Have all of my other posts really failed to answer this already for you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Now, care to comment on anything else I've said?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I'm guessing not, because, well, what could you say other than an abject capitulation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
See, RooK, I haven't answered any of your questions because you haven't really answered any of mine. I'm not talking about relative truths or perceptions. I'm talking about actual truths that exist independent of what you or I or any other person in the universe thinks, feels or believes.

---

quote:

---

I'll make it simple for you. I am wearing a shirt that is colored coral and white. You can say that in your world it's really a green shirt or even that it doesn't exist, and that can be your "relative truth". However, you are still wrong, because it DOES exist, and it IS coral and white, and what you say/feel/think about it makes no difference to its objective reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Why should RooK take your word about the color of your shirt, or anything else for that matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ok, can Jesus be God Incarnate and still( through the Holy Spirit) reach people through the religions in which they are born? Surely if Ruth has the intelligence to say"My religion and worldview is very much determined by chance of birth" then the omniscient ruler of all things must have some sort of dim grasp of this dynamic, also.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I buy into the Incarnation--I need a God who had the chutzpah and commitment to get down in the dirt with the rest of us. But I also believe in the Hound of Heaven that pursues souls through any means possible-even it is another faith. Who the heck are we to tell God what tools he can and can't use, and to dictate what the result of His work will be, as least as far as it pertains to the parroting back of a specific theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Just for the record, I do believe that there is a yes-or no answer to the question of Jesus's divinity. I happen to believe the answer is yes. but I definitely don't believe our need, for others to arrange the right words in the right order to convince US of their salvation, is shared by Jesus. To use RooK's word, I believe he has more "creativity" than that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Try:
How does "Christians, Jews, and Moslems both serve the same God, the God of Abraham, but only one of the three can actually be right about the right way to serve God, but we don't know whose right until we die, so we should just believe in Christianity" sound?


OTOH, right now Jews and Moselms are trying to kill each other over religious differences. I think that argues in Christianity's favor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Now, I would be the first to acknowledge that, in a pluriform world, my particular understanding of the nature of that sacrifice might be flawed. And I would be equally eager to admit that I don't have a clue about what it means, ultimately.

[snip]

I really don't give a damn about whether I'm "right" or "wrong" here. Nor would I be so presumptious as to deny any other religious tradition the equal possibility of worship. And worship is what it's all about, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kenwritez:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
And if you think Jesus really said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one cometh to the Father but by me," well, then, we just will have to agree to disagree about the nature of the gospel of John. This is early Christian theology, not words Jesus actually said.

---

You were standing there when he said them?

---

Well, of course not. 'Cause he didn't say them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:
I think there are various points in Christianity's favour.

However, regarding killing each other over religious differences, I think we've been there and done that..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thistle:
Originally posted by Halcyon Sailor:

quote:

---

Jesus never said, "You have to be a Christian to be saved." In fact, I remember him saying, "Anyone who is not against me is for me."

---

RSV has "he who is not with me is against me." (Matthew 12.30) Which puts a slightly different slant on the matter. And there was the old "No-one comes to the Father except through me," which you may or may not count as saying you have to be a Christian. I guess that's a bit of a tangent though.

Thank God that handing out Chick pamphlets isn't the criteria for salvation. We hope.

---

Actually both things were said by Jesus. The first saying was actually, "...whoever is not against us is for us."~Mark 9:40 which refered to an incident where healers who were not officially affiliated with Christ's group were casting out demons in Jesus' name and the disciples got huffy about it. Jesus told them anyone who was using his name to work miracles wouldn't be trash talking him the next moment. Besides, anyone doing good things for Christians because they are Christians will be rewarded. Good news for people who are nice to us fellow People of the Book.

The second was Jesus giving the Pharisees what-for for impugning his ability to cast out demons by implying he did it in league with the devil. Go ahead and insult me, but don't mess with the Spirit that makes all this good work possible. If you aren't with me, you are against me, assholes. ~profane paraphrase of Matt 12:30-32 courtesy of Lyda Rose.
 

---

Posted by Moschops (# 3034) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally Posted by RooK:

Let's play a little game, if you want. Line up any "absolute truth", and I'll give you an alternate explanation. Relatively speaking, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moschops:
I think all that Erin is claiming here is that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that some things are therefore true regardless of my (or your) perceptions. Same here; I don't claim to know what they are, but I believe that certain facts are true.

---

Yes, that's it, although I did go one step further and say that if X and Y are contradictory statements, then believing that X is true means that you believe Y is false.

Kelly, I have not ever said that God can't work through other religions. I firmly believe He can. However, I think that saying that all religions are equal is hugely, hugely insulting to Jesus, for it makes the ICR just a sadistic little magic trick that didn't really matter. I believe that Christianity is far more right than other religions, and I'd have to question the faith of a Jew or Muslim if they didn't believe similar about their religions.
 

---

Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
It seems to me that most of the time that we are quite happy to operate with some notion of absolute truth. If I posted on these boards that the CIA arranged for those planes to be flown into the World Trade Centre, or that, according to Holy Scripture black people were the children of Ham and could, therefore, licitly be enslaved, or that reports of an extermination camp at Auschwitz had been exaggerated by interested parties in order to encourage US support for Israel, I think that one or two of you might wish to put me straight. For that matter I think that most of us object to the comic strip linked to in the OP because we don't believe that Muslim grandparents routinely put their children down as suicide bombers at birth, in rather the same way that the children of the aristocracy put their children down for Eton. Suddenly, at this juncture, the notion of absolute truth looks terribly attractive. On none of these issues can both sides be right.

We routinely prefer medicine to faith healing, take seriously signs that say "Danger 1000 volts" and assume that the football results on Saturday evening are not concealing the six-nil tonking of Manchester United by Accrington Stanley. We assume that arguments between creationists and evolutionists, steady state theorists and apologists for the big bang, those who think Richard III did away with the Princes in the Tower and those who think that it was Henry VII wot done it are about something.

So why is it so terribly wicked and authoritarian to suggest that either our Lord did die on the cross or did not, that either He was the incarnate deity or he wasn't? When did religion become a kind of cognitive caucus race, in which all must have prizes?

Anyway, if there is no such thing as absolute truth then clearly the truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth is not absolute. So we can take it or leave it. Relativism is self-refuting.

And anyway, it's just not me.

[ 13. December 2003, 13:40: Message edited by: Mr Callan ]
 

---

Posted by Halcyon Sailor (# 5270) on :
 
In reference to all the different things Christ said about the way to Heaven, I find it constantly interesting how he never pointed out any specific path. I'm sure it confounded his disciples as well: "He who is not against us is for us," "I am the Way, Truth, and the Life," "What you did not do to the least of my brethren, you did not do unto me," etc. (Not to mention his many parables, which could have multiple interpretations.) It's almost as if Christ wasn't proclaiming an absolute truth but was rather saying there's many ways to Heaven. Or perhaps he was saying that HE is the absolute truth, but getting to him is not as clear-cut as we try to make it.

I think that's what made me most furious about Chick's theology. And those of you who try to point out the error in Chick's ways by proclaiming what YOU believe is the correct nature of God, aren't you just behaving like Chick in an opposite manner? Remember, as C.S. Lewis said, God is not the opposite of Satan... He goes beyond opposites. And He probably goes beyong our comprehension and definitions as well.

Personally, I'm thankful. It makes the journey exciting and fresh every day. I doubt I'll ever understand any more about Christ than a Muslim will; the difference may not be even an inch compared to how far both of us are from understanding Him fully, especially in regards to His dying on the cross. I mean, really, who CAN understand something like that?
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
Halcyon Sailor, the trick to reconciling all of those statements is simple and can be summed up in two sentences:

1. Jesus is the only way to God.

2. Christianity is not the only way to Jesus.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Pithy and well said, Erin.
 

---

Posted by melonman (# 4038) on :
 
Well,that's a very nice arguement you're all having, but I think it rather misses the point.

Whether or not Islam is "wrong", "differently right", "incomplete", "partly right", "satanic", all of the above or none of the above, does that make any difference to whether or not it is appropriate to do evangelism by painting caricatures of other faiths and preying on people's media-fed fears? Personally, I don't think that what the Chick tract says is that far from the truth, or at least from how at least some moslems see things. The problem for me is that I don't see how turning this into a cartoon booklet serves to promote the gospel to Westerners or Moslems. The danger is that westerners say "I'm not a primitive zealot like that so I'm OK", and moslems say "These people hate us so why should we be interested in their Jesus?"
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
There are extremist, hate-filled Muslims. There are also extremist, hate-filled Christians, of whom Jack Chick is one.

But I think the vast majority of people of all faiths and none might be ever so very slightly offended to be lumped in with either of them, for any reason.

I know we can't make comments about the sincerity with which Chick loves Jesus. I just struggle to think of a single fruit of the spirit that he evinces.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
Janine, love ya, but your quoted quiz could be manipulated not too difficultly to illumine Christians as equally murderous. From the Crusades forward, there is a long, undistinguished list of appaling events in Christian history that are similarly horriffic.

Are suicide bombers being raised from the cradle in some parts of the Islamic world? Sure. Was America attacked on 09/11/01 by radical Islamic terrorists of Arab decent? Sure. Is Islam a religion of peace? Ideally, yes. In practice, though, obviously, not always. Same for Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Some of you are speaking of religions as if they were machines, and as if Christianity is the one machine that really works. You are making a mistake.

Religions are not machines. They are ways of looking at a thing that cannot be seen. They are metaphors, not machines. Religions are metaphors for the relationship between the divine and the mundane, between the unseen and the seen, between God and man.

Is one metaphor better than another? Of course it is. Christianity is the metaphor by which I can best understand the “More” that I sense in the world around me. But that doesn’t make Christianity absolute truth and all other religions false. A religion is not God; it is only a way of seeing Him.

The truth of a metaphor is not in its technical accuracy, but in the way it resonates with the soul. I could speak of a sunrise as an increase in the direct lighting as a result of the continued rotation of the earth. Or, I could speak of a sunrise as liquid fire poured across the face of the mountains, burning away the darkness and igniting life. The former is more accurate, but the second gives the truth of sunrise (even if the prose is a bit purple!).

So it is with religion. Maybe Christianity is the most accurate account humanity has of God. But maybe Islam makes Mohammed’s heart leap and sing. Maybe Buddhism fills the Dalai Lama with peace and love for all creatures. Maybe rationalism leaves RooK gasping in awe at the wonder and beauty of universe. Maybe Christianity makes me feel so loved that I weep. Which of us has found the truth?

---

quote:

---

when was the last time a major christian entity, such as the RCC, declared holy war on a nation and began bombing civilians at random?

---

A good question.

However, Mr Chick believes that the Gestapo was run by Jesuits and the Holocaust a new Inquisition.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Intégriste:
Nonpropheteer, you ask

quote:

---

when was the last time a major christian entity, such as the RCC, declared holy war on a nation and began bombing civilians at random?

---

A good question.

However, Mr Chick believes that the Gestapo was run by Jesuits and the Holocaust a new Inquisition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Intégriste:
Nonpropheteer, you ask

quote:

---

when was the last time a major christian entity, such as the RCC, declared holy war on a nation and began bombing civilians at random?

---

A good question.

However, Mr Chick believes that the Gestapo was run by Jesuits and the Holocaust a new Inquisition.

---

Oh. I stand corrected.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:
The classic answers to the relationship between other religions and christianity are

1. Christainity is the only true religion all others are mere devil worship.
2. Christianity is the only true religion others religions see some glimpse of God but they need to be converted to Christianity.
3. Christianity is the most developed religion others are not so developed so people should be converted to christianity but other relgions may take people to heaven (darwin model of religions).
4. Christianity is the most developed religion but Christ works in other faith bringing them to God. Conversion is not that important dialogue is the key for relationships between the faiths.
5. All religions are equal and take people to God but Christ is possibly the supreme messenger amongst others. Dialogue between faiths is the norm conversion from one faith to another is wrong. The true enemy of faith is unfaith and religions should work together to bring kingdom values to the world.

---

quote:

---

excerpted from a post by tomb:
I believe that God cares/d enough about me to Do Something about how I tend to muck up my life.

Islam doesn't.

Nor does any other religion.

Christianity is unique in the revelation that God took steps to welcome us into his presence regardless of what assholes we were. Every other religion requires something of an admissions test.

---

quote:

---

posted by Erin:
Please list two mutually exclusive statements that can be simultaneously true. Or better yet, I'll give you an example and you can explain to me how they both can be true:

1. Jesus was God Incarnate.

2. Jesus was not God Incarnate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Halcyon Sailor, the trick to reconciling all of those statements is simple and can be summed up in two sentences:

1. Jesus is the only way to God.

2. Christianity is not the only way to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
You're ignoring another possibility here: that Jesus was indeed God Incarnate, but not the only manifestation of God Incarnate.

---

quote:

---

Posted by jlg:
"You're ignoring another possibility here: that Jesus was indeed God Incarnate, but not the only manifestation of God Incarnate."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
You're ignoring another possibility here: that Jesus was indeed God Incarnate, but not the only manifestation of God Incarnate.

---

I must admit, Jen, I've never thought of it like that before. I'll have to mull on that for a bit.

---

Mulling this sort of idea is quite useful in helping one to pay attention during the sermon/homily. (Or at least be thinking of something vaguely theological rather than planning one's Sunday dinner. )
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
In a well run household, Sunday dinner is planned on Saturday afternoon at the latest.

We're having Chicken Tetrazzini and a puree of broccoli, with a green salad.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
jlg, I didn't include that possibility because I was not comparing and contrasting any religion that holds that belief. I was comparing the Christian assertion that Jesus was God Incarnate with the Muslim assertion that Jesus was not God Incarnate. If you believe one of those statements to be true, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say the other is not false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
In a well run household, Sunday dinner is planned on Saturday afternoon at the latest.

We're having Chicken Tetrazzini and a puree of broccoli, with a green salad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Off-centre view:

quote:

---

Posted by jlg:
"You're ignoring another possibility here: that Jesus was indeed God Incarnate, but not the only manifestation of God Incarnate."

---

Jlg, is that idea sort of like the Avatars in Hindu belief wherein gods or other divine entities assume human form in order to interact with the world? If so are you arguing that it may well be that there were other "Christs" and incarnations of God that have occured throughout history?

---

quote:

---

I've always been fairly orthodox CofE in my beliefs (don't laugh too much), but that Avatar idea almost has a sort of "repeated fire" nature to it where God thinks that He constantly fails to get through to humanity and therefore must constantly jump into the world in human form seems a little too much. Surely if God was God He would only need to arrive on Earth at the best possible time.

---

I was raised a Baha'i and this concept was called Progressive Revelation. It isn't that God fails ( ) to get through to humanity, it is that humanity, like a growing child or even adult, keeps expanding its ability to learn and understand, so every so often God has to send a new messsenger with an updated message.

(To be honest, I no longer accept this idea, but it has definitely influenced my current beliefs.)

Oh, and as far as mankind failing to get the message and God needing to repeat it ad nauseum, well, I have a lot of faith in the general stupidity and "failure-to-get-it" of mankind. (And I include myself in that class, by the way.)

quote:

---

That "repeated firing" argument also leads us into dangerous territory as we have people like the founder of the Unification "moonies" Church (Revd. Sun Moon or whatever he is called) who claim that they are God and are here to put right where God "failed" the last time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
In a well run household, Sunday dinner is planned on Saturday afternoon at the latest.

We're having Chicken Tetrazzini and a puree of broccoli, with a green salad.

---

Why in God's name would you want to puree broccoli? Have you lost your teeth? Are you entertaining infants?

And have you no turkey left over from the Great Holiday to make the tettrazini with? You have to employ Inferior Poultry?

It's really hard to believe in God when Christians are cooking such bad meals.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
I'm getting that Gong Show feeling.
 

---

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
Why?

It's Saturday night and I'm feeling argumentative, but I know damn well I won't care about it tomorrow, so I figured I'd clutter up Hell rather than Purg (where people expect you to stick around for days defending what you said ).

And just to get back to the OP, I rather agree with whoever posted earlier that it would be great to be in Heaven when Chick arrives and see the look on his face when he sees who else is there.
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Just because of the odd variety of the posts looking at all three pages. Not that the thread should be "gonged". I actually don't like it when threads get closed.

Oh, and there has been one incarnation of God only.
 

---

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
You left off #6: All religions are not equal, but (nearly) all are paths to God. Christianity may or may not be the "most developed". (Perhaps God provided different paths because He understood that different people had different needs and means of understanding?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Halcyon Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Halcyon Sailor, the trick to reconciling all of those statements is simple and can be summed up in two sentences:

1. Jesus is the only way to God.

2. Christianity is not the only way to Jesus.

---

Ooo, very nice. I just like to hear myself talk, though, so don't mind my ramblings too much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Maybe Jack Chick will be in Hell for all eternity, maybe he'll be in Heaven. Either way, the cartoons he may very well make then will be ones I'll definately want to read, just to contrast them with what he's doing now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Why in God's name would you want to puree broccoli? Have you lost your teeth? Are you entertaining infants?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
<SNIP>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:


1. Jesus is the only way to God.

2. Christianity is not the only way to Jesus.

---

But if Jesus is God, doesn't that negate the validity of one of those statements?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

2+2=4... unless you're shopping in Canada. Then 2+2=4+GST. Even math becomes relative to its application.
If that makes you wave your arms and protest for mathematical purity, then divide both sides by zero and get back to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
"And because the blender thinks I like the food processor better, and gets its feelings hurt if I don't use it occasionally."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moschops:
don't see why Jesus can't be the only way to God and be God at the same time, especiallly if you believe in the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Maybe Jack Chick will be in Hell for all eternity, maybe he'll be in Heaven. Either way, the cartoons he may very well make then will be ones I'll definately want to read, just to contrast them with what he's doing now.

---

Oh Lord, I hope he isn't standing beside St. Pete saying "I told you so SINNER!"

---

quote:

---

But if it turned out that Chick's theology was right, would you really want to be a Christian anyway?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:
Not as 4 was stated,

---

quote:

---

Um, I wasn't seriously suggesting that Chick might have a point y'know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dorothea:
Papio wrote:

quote:

---

Um, I wasn't seriously suggesting that Chick might have a point y'know.

---

Ah. Seems I'm suffering from an irony
bypass.

J

---

a possibility methinks
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Chick is an ignorant hate-mongering piece of shit who disgraces the name of Christian. If he gets to heaven it will be in spite of, rather than because of, his proselytising activities.
 

---

Posted by metters77 (# 2495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Chick is an ignorant hate-mongering piece of shit who disgraces the name of Christian. If he gets to heaven it will be in spite of, rather than because of, his proselytising activities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Don't waste your time, RooK. I hold to my beliefs probably as firmly as Chick holds to his. I am not a wishy-washy pansy who strives for the seemingly noble yet ultimately worthless and stupid idea that everything is equally true. As I said earlier in the thread: if you're going to believe something, then believe it. Make a decision that something -- anything -- is true and get on with it. I don't really have a whole lot of patience for the hand-wringing "what should I believe today?" brigade, which is why I loathe and detest getting involved in esoteric theoretical theological debates, and why I've avoided them on these boards for years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Chick is an ignorant hate-mongering piece of shit who disgraces the name of Christian. If he gets to heaven it will be in spite of, rather than because of, his proselytising activities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
The core of my inquiry into your thoughts is the ability to respect others. I think it's important to have some mechanism for respecting beliefs that we do not necessarily agree with. If there isn't, then the only hope for wide-spread peace and progress is a gigantic philosophical mono-culture - and that's just plain fucking retarded and naive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Its not just the muslims. Have you read the ones about Roman Catholicism?? Or the terrible tale of little Mildred (The Letter)?

I just can't imagine how this poisonous man can call himself a Christian

Nic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
Islam is false. That's a necessary part of being a Christian.

---

No, it's not. Lots of us manage to be Christians without thinking Islam is false.

---

If you believe Christianity to be true, how on earth can you NOT believe Islam to be false? They make some extremely contradictory claims, and at least one HAS to be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
"What is truth?" --Pilot

---

Which pilot was that? Lindbergh or Amelia Earheart?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Originally posted by Halcyon Sailor:

quote:

---

Jesus never said, "You have to be a Christian to be saved." In fact, I remember him saying, "Anyone who is not against me is for me."

---

Neither did I. I merely pointed out that it is not possible to believe that Christ was crucified and that Christ was not crucified.

---

• The Hebrew of Isaiah says a "young woman" would give birth to a savior.
• The Greek translation of Isaiah says a "virgin" would give birth to a savior.
• Luke says a Virgin would give birth to Our Savior, alluding to Isaiah.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Please refer to the use of the term "all powerful" and explain why your supposed god would have to conform to our limited causality and perception of logic.

---

To quote C.S. Lewis (from memory) "not because it constitutes a limitation to God's omnipotence but because nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when it is talked about God".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
You preach it, RuthW.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Way to wuss out, RooK. YOU are the one making the statements that something can and cannot be X at the same time, now you get to prove it.

---

I'm not wussing out, but rather think I've got you pinned by your ilk's arbitrarily determined view of reality. If statements claiming miraculous contradicions like "a bush that burned and yet was not consumed" or "he died and then was brought back to life" or "fully human and fully god simultaneously" don't make you flinch, what's so difficult about Christianity being true for some and Islam true for others?

And, as a cherry, the penultimate example of something that can and cannot be X simultaneously: quantum physics. It's a particle! It's a wave! It's relative.

You may resume squirming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:

• The Hebrew of Isaiah says a "young woman" would give birth to a savior.
• The Greek translation of Isaiah says a "virgin" would give birth to a savior.
• Luke says a Virgin would give birth to Our Savior, alluding to Isaiah.

Huh? Was Luke following a faulty translation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I like Brussels Sprouts.

---

quote:

---

Yeah, verily, only those who eat Brussels sprouts shall enter the Kingdom! And the cabbage eaters shall inherit the earth!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
What qualifies a path as being "right" or "wrong"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
What qualifies a path as being "right" or "wrong"?

---

Let me turn this around a bit. If you don't believe in "right" and "wrong" paths, then why bother choosing any of them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I have not ever said that God can't work through other religions. I firmly believe He can. However, I think that saying that all religions are equal is hugely, hugely insulting to Jesus, for it makes the ICR just a sadistic little magic trick that didn't really matter. I believe that Christianity is far more right than other religions, and I'd have to question the faith of a Jew or Muslim if they didn't believe similar about their religions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Because one path is better for me than the others. It speaks a metaphor that resonates in my soul. It describes God in a way that I can understand. It is the right path for me.

That doesn't automatically make all of the other paths wrong for everyone in every situation.

Your turn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Well, NP kinda sorta beat me to the punch, although my example was going to be something along the lines of "well, then, Jack Chick's path is right, too, by your standards, as it seems to work for him".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
...]OK. Let's take something "internal" to Christianity.

• The Hebrew of Isaiah says a "young woman" would give birth to a savior.
• The Greek translation of Isaiah says a "virgin" would give birth to a savior.
• Luke says a Virgin would give birth to Our Savior, alluding to Isaiah.

...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer and affirmed by Erin:
So then Satanism is the right path to finding God for some people? Maybe no path at all is absolutely perfect for some. Maybe God can work through Jack Daniel's distillery to bring salvation. Christ sure wasted his time, eh? He could have just given the Pharisees the high-hard one and been done with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer and affirmed by Erin:
So then Satanism is the right path to finding God for some people? Maybe no path at all is absolutely perfect for some. Maybe God can work through Jack Daniel's distillery to bring salvation. Christ sure wasted his time, eh? He could have just given the Pharisees the high-hard one and been done with it.

---

Any path that leads to God cannot, by definition, be completely wrong. If you say that there is a wrong way to get to that goal, then your arrogance is right up there with Chick's. Not only that, but you have mistaken your religion for your God.

Are either of you going to answer my question about what criteria make one path to God "right" and another way "wrong"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
1. Jesus is the only way to God.

2. Christianity is not the only way to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Christianity is not the only way to God.

---

quote:

---

Buddhism is a way to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
2: Reaching God is not dependent on one's understanding of His nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
No. I'm echoing what someone (Cardinal Newman?) once said, roughly, 'don't judge a man on his theology of Christ, judge him by his similarity to Christ'. Unless I've gravely misread the Gospels, Mr Chick does not closely resemble Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Any path that leads to God cannot, by definition, be completely wrong. If you say that there is a wrong way to get to that goal, then your arrogance is right up there with Chick's. Not only that, but you have mistaken your religion for your God.

Are either of you going to answer my question about what criteria make one path to God "right" and another way "wrong"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
The core of my inquiry into your thoughts is the ability to respect others. I think it's important to have some mechanism for respecting beliefs that we do not necessarily agree with. If there isn't, then the only hope for wide-spread peace and progress is a gigantic philosophical mono-culture - and that's just plain fucking retarded and naive.

---

What beliefs that I find stupid and wrong would you have me respect, and why? I'll give you a list of beliefs I don't respect that, according to the statement I just quoted for you, I should; and you can tell me why I should.

1. Islam is a true religion.

2. Capitalism is bad and wrong.

3. Women should obey their husbands, fathers and brothers.

4. Black people should know their place in society, and it is NOT married to white people.

5. Homosexuals should be tied up to a fence post and burned alive.

6. It's perfectly fine to have sexual contact with children.

7. The government is here to take care of me at every stage of my life.

8. Hospitals and other medical care providers should be allowed to turn away the indigent and uninsured even if they are carrying their severed leg in a Coleman cooler.

9. You can wear white after Labor Day.

10. Brussels sprouts are NOT an abomination unto the Lord.

Now tell me why on earth I should respect each of those beliefs.

[edited for a major brain fart. it's hell getting old. *sigh*]

---

Are you saying that liking brussel sprouts is the moral equivalent of being a peodophile or a racist or a sexist?

if so, that's rubbish Erin.

Your thinking of broad beans.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
I recall the umbrage Erin showed when Jesuitical Lad used the same exact reasoning to suggest that:

1. Catholicism is the only way to God.

2. Christianity is not the only way to Catholicism.

The absolute of "everyone must be Catholic to see God" is watered down to "anyone can see God because if they do, they are Catholic whether they know it nor not." So it seems to me it is with Erin's absolute insistence upon access to God through Jesus but relativism in how they get to Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Are you saying that liking brussel sprouts is the moral equivalent of being a peodophile or a racist or a sexist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:


Now I have a question for the people on this thread who think that there is no such thing as a wrong path, or that all beliefs are equal and all that jazz: how can you even begin to speak out against Jack Chick or Fred Phelps or anyone that is routinely condemned on these boards if all paths are right and all beliefs are equal? What am I missing that doesn't make that total hypocrisy? What I'm really hearing is that "all beliefs are equal. Some are more equal than others".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But the path is "right", according to the relativity on display here. It clearly works for Jack Chick and Fred Phelps. How can you say it's wrong?

---

You can't say they aren't saved can you?

one can say they are arrogant imbeciles and that they are very bad advertisements for Christianity but you can't say that they are going to heaven.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Ooops. That should read " you can't say they aren't going to heaven.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But the path is "right", according to the relativity on display here. It clearly works for Jack Chick and Fred Phelps. How can you say it's wrong?

---

You can't say they aren't saved can you?

one can say they are arrogant imbeciles and that they are very bad advertisements for Christianity but you can't say that they are going to heaven.

---

quote:

---

Even God cannot do a contradition, not because it is too difficult for God to do, but rather because a contradictory act cannot be specified. There can be no such act. It is a bit like asking someone to walk in a perfectly straight like all the way to London with one step forward and an equal step back. That would not be a very strange or very difficult way to walk to London. It would be no way to London at all. Even God could not do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But the path is "right", according to the relativity on display here. It clearly works for Jack Chick and Fred Phelps. How can you say it's wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Are you sure the LXX translated it that way? I'm not challenging you here, I really want to know. I always assumed that Luke was taking liberties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Space Monkey:
You're confusing the issue by conflating factual truth and morality, and belief systems with the actions carried out by their adherents. Chick isn't 'wrong' in the same way that you were trying to argue that Islam is 'wrong'.

Chick's metaphysical beliefs can't be proved to be factually right or wrong, because they deal with intangibles and the unknown. He's welcome to hold his beliefs if he doesn't try to force them on the rest of us or pretend that he has sole claim to truth. However, he does do exactly that, and his work spreads hatred and prejudice, which is morally wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
But his belief system clearly requires that of him. So is it right or wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
but i'm glad that we seem to agree for a change.

---

I had the same thought.

And my complaint wasn't directed at you. I was just whining to the universe at large.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Space Monkey:


Do you really think you prove relativism untenable by getting a relativist to say that fundamentalism is wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Are you sure the LXX translated it that way? I'm not challenging you here, I really want to know. I always assumed that Luke was taking liberties.

---

Nope. It was the translators of the LXX, not Luke, who gave us the virgin in Isaiah.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
What DOD said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
The only difference I think I have with most people who hold that position is that I think he works through those religions despite their falseness. I imagine that most of my opponents in this debate feel he works through them in addition to their basic core truths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
There have been people who have committed murder that found solace in Christ in jail afterwards. Does that mean that murdering is a good thing? NOPE.

Same goes for man-made religions like LDS, JW & Islam. A person may find Jesus out of the blue in the religion, but it doesn't mean that path is the RIGHT PATH, it just means that person was lucky.

---

quote:

---

I love it when my post gets stranded at the bottom of the previous page, forever to be overlooked.

---

Quite the opposite. The points made at end of page 4 were very relevant to this discussion. I was going to respond earlier but my late tutorial turned up before I got around to it.

I was able to glean a great deal from Papio's points about discernment (e.g. the words of wisdom from his dad post). I don't know of any logical measure that can show that Christianity is better than any other major religion, yet there is something so profound and simple about the nature of faith in Christ and acceptance of his grace that really marks Christianity off from other faiths

Even so, I am loath to say to committed Budhists, Hindus amd Muslims that I am walking on the right path, while they are missing out. And whilst I could point to scripture and the Christian tradition to support my position, I do so only rarely, if ever. Maybe if they got tired or frustrated with their 'way', then I might.

Maybe that's why this Chick person pees me (and others?) off.

J

[ 15. December 2003, 16:14: Message edited by: dorothea ]
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 

quote:

---

yet there is something so profound and simple about the nature of faith in Christ and acceptance of his grace really marks Christianity off from other faiths

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
What DOD said.

---

Sticking with the strawman then? I suppose it's easier than explaining how a road that leads one to God can be absolutely wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
First question: are you trying to equate Islam with murder?

Second question: are you really equating Islam with Jehovah's Witness and The Latter-Day Saints?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Now tell me why on earth I should respect each of those beliefs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Firstly, there has been lots of talk about different paths to God. The trouble with this metaphor is that it implies God as a passive, or static object towards which we progress. This strikes me as being almost indecently Pelagian. Christianity (not to mention Judaism and Islam) see the relationship between humanity and God as one in which God has taken the initiative

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
are you really equating Islam with Jehovah's Witness and The Latter-Day Saints?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
I think that we can trust God who knows the secrets of all our hearts and who has His servants where His name is no longer, or has never been pronounced to know who His children are without our abandoning the concept of objective truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
So, let me refine my question to Madame Community Editor:
Are there any beliefs that you don't 100% agree with that you respect? If so, how do you determine that they deserve respect?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Firstly, there has been lots of talk about different paths to God. The trouble with this metaphor is that it implies God as a passive, or static object towards which we progress. This strikes me as being almost indecently Pelagian. Christianity (not to mention Judaism and Islam) see the relationship between humanity and God as one in which God has taken the initiative

---

Hear! hear!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Brussells Sprouts are dinky little cute baby cabbages and are lovely.

Jack Chick isn't.

End of topic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
What DOD said.

---

Sticking with the strawman then? I suppose it's easier than explaining how a road that leads one to God can be absolutely wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
I think that we can trust God who knows the secrets of all our hearts and who has His servants where His name is no longer, or has never been pronounced to know who His children are without our abandoning the concept of objective truth.

---

quote:

---

Firstly, there has been lots of talk about different paths to God. The trouble with this metaphor is that it implies God as a passive, or static object towards which we progress.

---

quote:

---

I think that we can trust God who knows the secrets of all our hearts and who has His servants where His name is no longer...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
There isn't any way to know for certain who or what is right, and to say otherwise is to just lie to yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So there ARE right and wrong paths, regardless of whether or not we can ever know of their existence or which is which, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Going back to duchess' post. A man is on a particular path. In his path, his wants and needs are more important than everything else in the world. Eventually, his wants and needs lead him to abuse his wife and molest his children over a number of years.

His wife, after enduring decades of abuse, has gathered the courage and strength to leave him. His children will have nothing to do with him. He is alone. In his hour of loneliness he sincerely turns to Jesus and becomes a "true" Christian. True in that he does all of the things commanded by Jesus and then some, and he somehow manages to really follow the Great Commandments. And he will tell anyone who asks that his current spiritual state and love for the Lord would not have been possible without the utter sinfulness and depravity of his earlier years. That path has led him to God.

Is it right or wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Because at least one person (*not looking at Scot*) has argued above that any path that leads one to God cannot, by definition, be wrong.

---

quote:

---

So was it right? Or was it wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

So was it right? Or was it wrong?

---

By what definition? No, never mind that. Why do you need an answer?

---

quote:

---

So it is with religion. Maybe Christianity is the most accurate account humanity has of God. But maybe Islam makes Mohammed’s heart leap and sing. Maybe Buddhism fills the Dalai Lama with peace and love for all creatures. Maybe rationalism leaves RooK gasping in awe at the wonder and beauty of universe. Maybe Christianity makes me feel so loved that I weep. Which of us has found the truth?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I would think that would be obvious, but since it is not: if that path can be right, what is to stop you or me or anyone else from following it, too, or holding it up as an ideal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Going back to duchess' post. A man is on a particular path. In his path, his wants and needs are more important than everything else in the world. Eventually, his wants and needs lead him to abuse his wife and molest his children over a number of years.

His wife, after enduring decades of abuse, has gathered the courage and strength to leave him. His children will have nothing to do with him. He is alone. In his hour of loneliness he sincerely turns to Jesus and becomes a "true" Christian. True in that he does all of the things commanded by Jesus and then some, and he somehow manages to really follow the Great Commandments. And he will tell anyone who asks that his current spiritual state and love for the Lord would not have been possible without the utter sinfulness and depravity of his earlier years. That path has led him to God.

Is it right or wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
What judgement would you make, and why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
OK, why?

---

quote:

---

Erin's point seems to be that this individual path cannot be "right" if it gives license to cause harm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
If a cleric is counselling an abusive man, he might hope that the family escapes and that the man finds god. For someone already on the beginning of this path, the culmination could easily be seen as the ideal option possible. Or whatever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
1. I cannot respect any belief system which rejects Jesus as the true and only incarnation of God. <snip>

2. Any belief system which does not, at its core, hold to, at the very least, the second part of the Great Commandment, is wrong and evil. <snip>

3. Any belief system which rejects the idea of grace is false. <snip>

However, for 2 and 3 at least, that is humanity's ONLY hope, whether or not you are an atheist, a Christian, a Buddhist, whatever; the only hope for humanity is to love your neighbor as yourself (provided you aren't a self-loathing whackjob, I suppose) and to manifest grace whenever you can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
It still seems to me like you've picked your stance/criterion pretty arbitrarily. Based on that observation alone, I'm of the opinion that means you're on pretty weak footing to be making any judgements about anyone else's beliefs. You don't have to agree with them, but it seems reasonable that you admit that they are just as likely to be right as you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Nightlamp, you're wondering about decisiveness, and I have to agree that practicality means that indecision is often the enemy. A more accurate analogy, however, would be if you told those following you that you knew for certain that you were going the right way when you were in fact just guessing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I did not choose it arbitrarily. I have very solid reasons for the decisions I've made. However, they would not meet your standards of proof, and they are very personal, so I do not and will not offer them.

---

quote:

---

I will say this, though: whether my belief system is right or wrong was NEVER my point here. My initial post to this thread was that if one believes "X", and someone else says "not X", it is logically impossible and utterly worthless to affirm both statements.

I still maintain that position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Considering that, would you be willing to elucidate why you're certain that most people on earth are wrong wrong WRONG?

---

quote:

---

Still, accept that this has been conceded already, and been clarified as "admitting uncertainty means aknowleding that there are other possible answers". Hence, a person can think that Christianity is true, and also admit that it's possible Islam might be true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:


Divine Outlaw-Dwarf, your hay-bale of "Absolute Relatavism" obviously doesn't exist. Never really seen the beastie. What I, and I suspect some others, are arguing from is a position of humility and intellectual honesty. There isn't any way to know for certain who or what is right, and to say otherwise is to just lie to yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
I am not all that interested in putting some pretty painful stuff out there to be mocked now and used to smack me around later.

---

quote:

---

Christianity makes some very exclusive claims. If you really, truly believe those claims, you simply cannot say "but then again, Islam, which categorically and unambigously denies these specific claims of Christianity which I believe could be right, too" with any sort of integrity. Unless, of course, it's in the same vein as considering the possibility that the Earth might reverse rotation overnight and the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. But I'm not sure you'd ever see any scientist treating that possibility as anything but theoretical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Because at least one person (*not looking at Scot*) has argued above that any path that leads one to God cannot, by definition, be wrong. So this dude's path that eventually landed him on God's front porch destroyed a fair number of lives. He got to God in the end, though, while there is a helluva good chance that his wife and children never will.

So was it right? Or was it wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Considering that, would you be willing to elucidate why you're certain that most people on earth are wrong wrong WRONG?

---

Not particularly. As I said, it's personal. And to be honest, I am not all that interested in putting some pretty painful stuff out there to be mocked now and used to smack me around later.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Still, accept that this has been conceded already, and been clarified as "admitting uncertainty means aknowleding that there are other possible answers". Hence, a person can think that Christianity is true, and also admit that it's possible Islam might be true.

---

I don't believe that. Christianity makes some very exclusive claims. If you really, truly believe those claims, you simply cannot say "but then again, Islam, which categorically and unambigously denies these specific claims of Christianity which I believe could be right, too" with any sort of integrity. Unless, of course, it's in the same vein as considering the possibility that the Earth might reverse rotation overnight and the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. But I'm not sure you'd ever see any scientist treating that possibility as anything but theoretical.

[I claim ultrazillion points!!!]

---

quote:

---

Tomb groused:

Groggily and in considerable pain, he clears the computer screen of sanscrit and even though he knows what to expect, feels his eyes begin to droop as he reviews the conversation between JimT, Erin, and RooK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Well, you've got to appreciate that I'm looking at the whole topic with the perspective that most christians wholeheartedly believe that their god could make the Earth reverse rotation if he wanted it to. You're not going to impress me with making some extreme claims look silly, because it all looks pretty darn silly already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
So what's the big deal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

Mertblurter, this conversation never really belonged in Purgatory for one important reason - it would only encourage all the pseudo-intellectual flies like you to buzz around my sparring with Erin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
Mis en scene: the study of an earnest hellhost

"Damn," he thinks to himself, "these people are trying to kill me. At least boredom didn't make me forget how to breathe before I fell asleep. That could have been dangerous."

---

 

---

Posted by Mr Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

As for Mr. Callan's idea about the relational and propositional nature of Christianity, this strikes me as a useful way to consider the whole topic, though I honestly have a hard time seeing why anyone would prefer the propositional view; to me the whole thing is about a relationship, not a set of propositions. I don't think we'll be sitting entrance exams for heaven.

---

quote:

---

1. How does one evaluate the objective and absolute truth of a statement such as "Jesus is the only way to God?" It seems to me impossible. If someone does not believe a bat can hurt them, you can hit them with a bat. If someone does not believe that "Jesus is the only way to God," what means are available to demonstrate its objective and absolute truth regardless of the beliefs and world view of the hearer?

---

quote:

---

When one compares the absolute truth of a statement like #1 with the absolute truth of the potential harmful effects of a baseball bat, the disbelieving hearer, no matter how thick their skin, cannot but feel a measure of undeseved disrepect for their intellect. While it is true that disbelieving an objective truth will never make it false no matter how hard one disbelieves, believing a non-demonstratable truth can never turn it into an objective and absolute truth no matter how fervently one believes it, nor how many agree with it. It also does not make it true if the disbeliever cannot prove it false. It is simply an unverifiable belief. We all have them. They are not equivilent, but neither can any of them said to be objective and absolute. In my worldview, only the demonstratable can truly be said to be objective and absolute. All else is belief, which can be argued "better" or "worse" but not "absolute."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
I blame my socialist indoctrination in the mountains of Canada for impairing my understanding of Libertarian mentality. With the fundamental assumption that every person doesn't have to give a shit about what anyone else thinks as long as they respect their mutual rights, you're completely right - there is no big deal.

---

Their God-given, inherent-and-cannot-be-taken-away rights, you mean.
 

---

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :
 
And here goes the triple post.

JimT, going back to your question about grace. THE definitive book on the subject is Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?". I think it should be required reading for everyone on the planet, and when I am finally Supreme Tyrant in Chief I will shove it down everyone's throat. Until then, however, get a copy. It is a brilliant, understandable treatment of the subject.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:


DOD, no matter how many times you argue against it, it’s still a strawman.

---

quote:

---

Rather, they cling to the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarized briefly as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in ``eternal'' physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the ``objective'' procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

---

quote:

---

The teaching of science and mathematics must be purged of its authoritarian and elitist characteristics, and the content of these subjects enriched by incorporating the insights of the feminist, queer, multiculturalist and ecological critiques.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Callan:
Originally posted by RuthW:

I think we need to distinguish between 'objective' and 'absolute'. 'Absolute' in the sense you are using it seems to me to describe a position which is uncontroversial and uncontested - "This will hurt" is an absolute proposition.

---

quote:

---

There's a theory that everyone is trying to serve God, in his/her twisted way. So maybe this is just Jack Chick's defect, but everyone else (Paisley, Bin Laden, Hitler, and you and me, everyone) is trying to move towards the light, no matter how badly they may be doing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
And here goes the triple post.

JimT, going back to your question about grace. THE definitive book on the subject is Philip Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?". I think it should be required reading for everyone on the planet, and when I am finally Supreme Tyrant in Chief I will shove it down everyone's throat. Until then, however, get a copy. It is a brilliant, understandable treatment of the subject.

---

quote:

---

Let me get this straight..Hitler's massacre of the Jews and enslavement of europe was simply "Taking the scenic route" to God?

Try this idea, maybe, just maybe, it was the polar opposite of moving towards the light? He was moving away from it, and continued to move away to it towards eternal damnation in hell?

---

quote:

---

Yes, young Muslims are raised to be suicide bombers, but not in the moral vaccuum depicted here. Suicide bombings are driven by utter utter desperation in the face of oppression, not just by religious fundamentalism

---

quote:

---

" at the end of every fucking tract he is gloating over bad hell-related shit happening to people he doesn't like."

---

quote:

---

Islam is false. That's a necessary part of being a Christian.
Muslims are not evil, just mistaken

---

Chestertonian! Islam? FALSE?!! Muslims? MISTAKEN?! You've got a lot to learn about being a liberal Christian m'lad. Face it, you're a raving fundie at heart. Come and join us evangelicals, we'll be far more tolerant of outmoded, niaeve beliefs like these.

quote:

---

The factual accuracy of his belief system about God, heaven and hell is irrelevant, because those things aren't verifiable facts; his mistake is to act as if they were. If you have to have an answer, his belief system is 'wrong' inasmuch as it involves making unsubstantiated and absolute truth claims about these unverifiable beliefs.

---

quote:

---

What I was clearly saying was that these people are wrong in the sense of 'being in error' (about how to understand that desire and drive) rather than wrong in the sense of 'fundamentally and profoundly evil'. So we should put them right rather than just washing our hands of them.

---

quote:

---

Chestertonian! Islam? FALSE?!! Muslims? MISTAKEN?! You've got a lot to learn about being a liberal Christian m'lad. Face it, you're a raving fundie at heart. Come and join us evangelicals, we'll be far more tolerant of outmoded, naive beliefs like these.

---

quote:

---

Is it a verifiable fact that God, Heaven and hell are not verifiable facts? Or is that merely just your belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
it's a distinctly fundamentalist Islamic solution to start blowing yourself up when you're being oppressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Is it a verifiable fact that God, Heaven and hell are not verifiable facts? Or is that merely just your belief?

If so, can you prove that please? because I believe that it is not a fact.

There is a problem of metalogic here. Essentially, any declarative statement can be prefixed with the words "I believe" and any belief statement can be prefixed with the words "It is a fact that..."

Consequently, it is logically, and grammatically correct to say "I believe that it is a fact that I believe that it is a fact that I believe that it is a fact that.....ad infinitum" for any declarative statement.

So which comes first? the belief or the fact?

You have said it is wrong for Chick to act as if his belief was a fact.

Your logic is circular, because the immediate counter-argument is that this is only your belief and yet you are stating it as fact. You come back at me saying "That's only your belief" and so the cycle goes on.

It's the flaw in all post modern pluralist philosophy.

matt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Their God-given, inherent-and-cannot-be-taken-away rights, you mean.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
yet there is something so profound and simple about the nature of faith in Christ and acceptance of his grace really marks Christianity off from other faiths

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

um, maybe its me, but, while i can see many things that could be said about christianity, i don't see how it is any simpler or more profound than any other of the major world faiths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

Mertseger, that was a full point - very witty. If you read the bile-inducing sputum that followed you, however, don't you think I might have had a point? Sometimes conversations are more entertaining when you don't have to be polite.

---

Takes towell off head.

Thank you, and I absolutely agree that some conversations are more entertaining when you don't have to be polite. I was, however, truly, enjoying your conversation with Erin. That conversation was largely polite, and showed me things about the subject from two interesting perspectives. I maintain that the atmosphere in this thread still seems pretty Purgatorial. Therefore, I shall taunt you further with this link (via Dave Barry's blog.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Damn it. Why can't you people who write long paragraphs with big words stay in Purgatory where you belong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chestertonian:
Hmm. No rehabilitation for certain people. Not wholly sure that I agree with you. Don't we have a duty to forgive and to try to help people? And you can't limit forgiveness to things that don't really bother you. So I think that we're obliged to help people to fix themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Damn it. Why can't you people who write long paragraphs with big words stay in Purgatory where you belong.

---

RooK gaveth us the apple, and we did eat. Blameth him.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomb:
"Damn," he thinks to himself, "these people are trying to kill me. At least boredom didn't make me forget how to breathe before I fell asleep. That could have been dangerous."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
And, AdamPater, your thread title "Do I have to share heaven with this guy?"...have you considered Mr. Chick might just say the same thing about you?

---

quote:

---

I suggested that relativism is the only honest approach to religious myths and beliefs, not that it should be appied to every statement.

---

quote:

---

I take absolute and objective to be synonyms. I am very unhappy about eliding the way in statement which a statement is true with the conditions of epistemic access to that truth. This was one of the key errors of logical positivism. If 'Jesus rose from the dead' is true, then it is true absolutely. It may well be the case that this belief is not susceptible to (pre-eschatological) falsification, but this is not a weakness in the quality of the truth so much as in our capacity to access that truth.

---

I don't disagree with you. I think that the demarcation between empirical and metaphysical beliefs is a useful one if only because empirical beliefs are, er, empirical and metaphysical beliefs are, well, metaphysical. And, of course, those were the terms in which JimT set the problem, as it were. But I agree that metaphysical truth is 'just as true' as empirical truth and an account of truth which gives priority to empirical truth is entirely contingent on metaphysical assumptions.

JimT - I didn't accuse you of being a logical positivist. I suggested that you were unduly influenced by logical positivism. There's a subtle but important distinction.

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Some have said that Chick implies all muslims are like this. He doesn't, otherwise, he would have set his story featuring nice middle of the road muslims in Middle class America wouldn't he?? His tract describes the state of affairs in the middle east.

---

quote:

---

Dear Lord, thank you for showing me the what you think about Islam. I reject it.

---

quote:

---

I agree with ken here: the Militant Palestinian Extremists didn't invent homicide bombing. What they did do, however, was perfect it.

---

quote:

---

Relativism is the only honest approach to religious myths and beliefs, not that it should be applied to every statement.

---

quote:

---

You're ignoring the difference between factual verifiable truth and moral religious truth. Can you not see the simple distinction between things we can empirically prove and things we can't?

---

quote:

---

Religious truth is quite different from factual truth.

---

quote:

---

Discussing and exploring our ideas about what might be out there in a spirit of open-minded enquiry, informed by tradition and religious scriptures, is a noble endeavour. Insisting that you know the truth about this stuff when that's quite plainly a physical impossibility helps no one.

---

quote:

---

It all just seems so arbitrary. If you believe in an all-power being, what's stopping it from having two simultaneous truths?

---

Rook, this is the crux of all theological arguements. The answer to your question is of course, "logic".

But if God is not subject to logic, then the law of mutally exclusive alternatives goes out the window.

For example, the mutually exclusive alternative "God Exists" and "God Doesn't Exist" would go out the window. If we can be illogical, then both can be true.

The mutually exclusive alternatives "God is bad" and "God is good" go out the window.

In short, you would, at a stroke render every human thought about God, (and in fact, about everything else) meaningless and pointless.

And for the deepest cut of all, if God is not subject to logic and the law of mutual exclusion does not apply, then the statements "God is subject to logic" and "God is not subject to logic" can therefore both be simultaneously true.

So you'd end up right back where you started from I'm afraid. Far out man. I'm off to find some more weed.....

matt
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Unbearably Boring:
In short, you would, at a stroke render every human thought about God meaningless and pointless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
I'll only add in that IMO, which shouldn't matter too much at all to Hell denziens, Hamas et al have made homicide bombing Policy -- a consistent, indiscriminant and disgusting one at that. There you go.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
No, dipshit diver, I'm saying that's how it seems already. If you're going to make me endure one of your pointless fucking purgatorial tirades, at least try understanding what other people mean.

Take your "logic" and go fertilize something smarter than yourself with it - like, say, some mushrooms.

---

Ah, nothing like good ol' hockey puck losing it to put me in a good mood. I made a lame dip-stick webpage just for you.

[edited for code once again. Argh.]

[ 16. December 2003, 23:34: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :
 
duchess

I would offer to have all your babies, but I can't have any more.


 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
duchess, every once in a while you completely blow my mind.
 

---

Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
I'll only add in that IMO, which shouldn't matter too much at all to Hell denziens, Hamas et al have made homicide bombing Policy -- a consistent, indiscriminant and disgusting one at that. There you go.

---

We have a moral difference in place between a bombing raid and a homicide bombing this is not seen by hamas ect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Relativism is the only honest approach to religious myths and beliefs, not that it should be applied to every statement.

---

But this statement begs the question surely? It's a statement that requires justification and to be shown to be demonstrably true. But it can't be. Because it's your belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Riv:
I'll only add in that IMO, which shouldn't matter too much at all to Hell denziens, Hamas et al have made homicide bombing Policy -- a consistent, indiscriminant and disgusting one at that. There you go.

---

We have a moral difference in place between a bombing raid and a homicide bombing this is not seen by hamas ect.

---

quote:

---

Oh for God's sake, you are boring me now. It's your argument that's illogical. You point out that absolutely nothing can be ultimately proven as true. Fair enough, but as you've observed, that doesn't get us very far - in practice, there are certain things we accept as facts, which requires a certain amount of basic proof if we're not all to argue constantly about what's real and what's not.

---

quote:

---

Then you say we have to believe absolutely in the stuff that's furthest from having any proof. You can't have it both ways. And if your understanding of metaphor and imagination is this limited, I guess you must have some major problems reading novels or poems.

---

quote:

---

Tell me how you propose to 'prove' that Chick's heaven exists with the kind of proof you'd use for a scientific theory, and I'll accept that there's no difference between the two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Consider the statement: "On May 20th 1950 there were 2,234,266 blades of grass in hyde park". This is a purely factual statement. It must be either true or false. It is also entirely impossible to prove or disprove. I cannot say whether it is true or false, but I can say with confidence that it must be either true or false.

---

Nonsense. I can say with astonishing amounts of confidence that it false.

If you had given a range of numbers I'd have to do some sums, but unless you were very clever & knew a lot about Hyde Park and knew a lot about grass (I'm all three ) you'd be pretty likely to get it wrong.

That's how science works - by estimate & proibability and educated guessing. And that's about as certain (or as little uncertain) as any knoweldge we have in the world (only exceptions being a few odd bits of maths & logic which are arguably just True)

Your complete bollocks idea that there is some sort of special category of "religious" truth that's different from "physical" truth is nothing but a way for atheists to pat believers on the head & say "there there don't worry your little heads about it wer know that when you talk about this God business you are just using Special Language that doesn't really mean anything we need to bother ourselves about" Bloody fluffy-bunny 6th-form philosphy.


The kinds of evidence we have about God are in fact exactly the same as the kinds of evidence we have for anything else pretending they aren't is just stupid. You can't "prove" tan't God exists? Join the club - you can't even "prove" that you exist.
 

---

Posted by Grey Face (# 4682) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Your complete bollocks idea that there is some sort of special category of "religious" truth that's different from "physical" truth is nothing but a [snip]...

Bloody fluffy-bunny 6th-form philosphy.

---

Actually, isn't that exactly the point Matt was trying to make, that the notion of religious truth being different in concept, from any other truth is bollocks?

If not, I'm lost in this one. I'll get me coat.

[ 17. December 2003, 12:13: Message edited by: Grey Face ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Excuse me, am I just a figment of my own imagination?
 

---

Posted by chestertonian (# 5264) on :
 
I think the reference was to the argument that runs as follows:

We perceive certain physical objects. Say, a cat. But all that physical 'cat' is, is a collection of particles. So our imputation of unity to it is in error.
Similarly, 'I' perceive that 'I' have a mind. However, this 'mind' can equally be seen as an illusion produced by a collection of thoughts, which as a mass create (to themselves) an appearance of something 'thinking'. So the imputation of unity is again in error, because we are assuming a ground on which the thoughts exist.

I think the argument is flawed myself, but I won't go into it as we're already wildly off-topic.

[ 17. December 2003, 12:41: Message edited by: chestertonian ]
 

---

Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grey Face:
Actually, isn't that exactly the point Matt was trying to make, that the notion of religious truth being different in concept, from any other truth is bollocks?

If not, I'm lost in this one. I'll get me coat.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0