|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Do I have to share heaven with this guy?
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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*]
[ 15. December 2003, 00:00: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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 ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Nic
Hey, I have had to live with this one for years. People like to remind me about it. Those people are what you call "friends."
At least "Bad Bob" turns out good (I think) in the end.
(By the way, my real first name is Robert.)
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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.
"What is truth?" --Pilot
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
"What is truth?" --Pilot
Which pilot was that? Lindbergh or Amelia Earheart?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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.
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.
Huh? Was Luke following a faulty translation?
Now, I happen to think there are ways to explain this switch and application to Mary and Jesus that does not require Spong's revisionist mindset. (Think about how the Apocalypse meant one thing to the original hearers, then was transformed into the message about the Second Coming we read in our Bibles today.) At the same time, I can see someone (RooK?) declaring that I have shit for brains for finding a hard-to-understand explanation, and being as intelectually dishonest as Spong--even if in a different way.
We live by faith, not by fact. We see through a glass dimly, not clearly.
Are Jack Chick's sins any worse than mine?
God does not grade on a curve. This is a pass-fail course. Unfortunately, we all fail and failure is a capital offense.
Personally, I think that if Jack Chick makes it to heaven, that is good news. It means I can make it through the grace that is given, just the same as Chick.
The only question left is whether Jack Chick would stay in Eternity with folk like Mother Theresa (Roman Catholic)--or me, for that matter.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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".
CS Lewis (again from memory) also wrote somewhere that we don't know or understand all of natural law. So, it is not that miracles may not be a suspension of natural law, but follow these laws in a way we don't yet understand.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
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.
And people accuse me of being Purgatorial in Hell.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
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?
The thing to keep in mind is how words can change in definition over 2000 years. Luke did not use the word "virgin", he used whatever greek word was available. As I understand it (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) ancient greek didn't have a large vocabulary. Its quite possible that the word used there has come to mean "virgin" but didn't exclusively mean a woman who has never had sex. It might have been much more generic in meaning, such as "a young girl of marrying age".
Just a thought.
Rook:
Define what you mean by 'respect'. I believe everyone has to search for spiritual fulfillment in their own way, but that doesn't mean I have to think they are on the right path, or that their path -being "wrong" - is equal in validity to mine.
Erin:
brussell sprouts are yummy.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
What qualifies a path as being "right" or "wrong"?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I like Brussels Sprouts.
Heathen.
Hope you got sunblock.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
I like Brussels sprouts, too. Although I didn't when I was a child. I'm a convert to Brussels sprouts.
Hmmmm.
I think God is speaking to me....
quote:
Yeah, verily, only those who eat Brussels sprouts shall enter the Kingdom! And the cabbage eaters shall inherit the earth!
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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?
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.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Brussels Sprouts are the only true vegetable.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chris
Shipmate
# 111
|
Posted
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.
Don't you hate it when you have to agree with Erin? I know I do.
--------------------
...and praise will come to those whose kindness leaves you without debt...
Posts: 194 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
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.
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.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
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".
Ah, but yours is less inflammatory and sacrcastic. You must be loosing your touch in your old age - you are, after all, over 10600 posts old, while I am a spry 700 or so.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
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.
...
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.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
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"?
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
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"?
The right path is the one that leads you to where God wants you to be. All the others area wrong, no matter how enthusiastically they are believed. There are many criteria set down in the bible,from both Jesus and Paul that help define the path. You may counter that the bible can be interpreted any way you like, but my response is that there is only one way to interpret the bible: The way God wants it interpreted. All other ways are wrong.
One needs to place more importance on personal revelation from God than human understanding and knowledge.
...and yes, I do believe God talks/reveals to us everyday.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I've been lurking with interest and wonder if Erin might unpack this just a bit. It might answer Scot's question:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
1. Jesus is the only way to God.
2. Christianity is not the only way to Jesus.
What I find as a bridge to RooK and Scot and that side of the house is that the net effect of these two statements is:
quote:
Christianity is not the only way to God.
It opens up the possible truth of this statement:
quote:
Buddhism is a way to God.
It appears that Erin would agree with the possibility of truth in this statement if the Buddhist has "found a way to Jesus." In what way? Living a Christ-like life? Acknowledging Christ as the incarnation of God and rejecting the Dali Lama as the nth reincarnation of God? If a Buddhist lives a completely Christ-like life, but rejects Christ as the unique incarnation of God because he acted violently in repelling the money-changers from the temple and Buddhism teaches strict non-violence, has this Buddhist not really found God? On the other hand, is the Buddhist who fully embraces Christ as a manifestation of the Buddha really a Christian while professing to be Buddhist?
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.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
How about:
1: God can be reached through different paths;
2: Reaching God is not dependent on one's understanding of His nature.
?
So that a Muslim (for example) could behave in a good way, and thus be saved (Christian naturaliter, as they say) but could be factually wrong about what God is, an error that will doubtless be corrected come the Kingdom.
And we can then say that Christianity is less in error than Islam, though individually we are of course all in error, and that the nature of this error is factual rather than essentially moral (though we can also say that Christianity is likely to lead to a better relationship with God through a better understanding of him).
Does that work for anyone?
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chestertonian:
2: Reaching God is not dependent on one's understanding of His nature.
So you reckon that Jack Chick will go straight up there to be with the big guy?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
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.
Why would you want to take Cardinal Newman's *spit* encouragement to go around judging others?
[ 15. December 2003, 09:06: Message edited by: anglicanrascal ]
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
It doesn't mean 'judge' in a serious way, more 'evaluate'. I've probably paraphrased it really badly. It might even have been "We will not be judged by..." I can't remember exactly, but you see the point.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
mmmm - might have been a bit aggressive there ... sorry.
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
No problem. Given that I've clarified my point, what do you think?
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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"?
What NP said.
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".
[ 15. December 2003, 11:42: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
if so, that's rubbish Erin. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Your thinking of broad beans. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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.
There is a slight (very slight) difference between the two: JL insisted that if you were saved, you were really Catholic and did not know it. I don't make any claims to people really being Christians deep down and not knowing it. I believe that Jesus can and does work through other religions. 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.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dorothea
Goodwife and low church mystic
# 4398
|
Posted
This whole thread prompts me to wonder along these lines:
I can see how the belief that Jesus is the only true way to God has validity for many who believe that he is the only vehicle by which one can be reconciled to the Creator. However,whilst many hold to this belief, others hold that Islam is the true religion.
It seems to me (and I'm not much of philospher and even less of theologian - hence the musing)that no matter how much one tries, how can it be possible to hold with absolute certainty that one religion is true, whilst another is not?
These musings do not mean that I reject Christainity. Far from it, through a process of ongoing revelation I continaully discover on a subjective level that Christianity is indeed the answer to my needs; however, an Isamic person might experience a very similar thing via their own faith.
I'm not purposely trying to take a post modern position on this but I find I have deep seated reservations about expressing objective certainties about an area (religion/faith) which is by it's very nature highly subjective.
See what I mean?
--------------------
Protestant head? Catholic Heart?
http://joansbitsandpieces.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1581 | From: Notlob City Limits | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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?
Oh no. It's much, much worse.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
It is impossible to prove that one religion is true but the rest are not. It is not impossible to feel certain about it and to regard it as a fact since human beings are not always the most rational of creatures.
Then again, it is impossible to "prove" any theological or philosophical assumptions whatever, it seems to me.
To have a mind that is too closed is a sign of arrogance but, as me dear ole dad used to say, "I used to have a completely open mind but things kept falling out".
make of that what you will.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
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".
Given that no one can prove anything one way or another about the metaphysical claims made in religions, all of them have to be seen as metaphors, ways of trying to describe a relationship or a journey. They are thus all equally valid, because at their heart they don't deal with simple factual literal certainties. Different sets of ideas will work for different people and places.
By the same token, anyone who insists that their own set of beliefs is the only true one, and goes on to spread hatred or persecute those who hold other beliefs, is clearly in the wrong and is harming other people.
Given that no one has verifiable proof that their religion is true, it's wrong to act as if they have. Where is the contradiction in that, Erin?
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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.
Who said anything about saved or unsaved? I am talking about right and wrong. Space Monkey (the latest of many, many others) yammered that all paths are right and in the same breath turned around and said that Chick's path was wrong. How is that possible?
Note that for the purposes of this argument:
Right/Wrong != Saved/Unsaved
I firmly believe that God can save anyone God feels like, regardless of how greviously wrong that person may be.
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I'm going to flash my claque card here and agree with Erin that the "all paths are equal" view is a load.
We have no proof of the truth of Christianity aside from what scripture attests to and what tradition has given us. Some people throw in experience or the presence of moral law. That is where we find truth. I think we also look at other religions that share many of the core values of Christianity and say that truth is present in them at least in part, which is not the same as false. We look at other belief systems with values antithetical to Christianity and say they are categorically wrong.
Salvation is a different issue than truth.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I'll just chime in here to cheer Erin on in her defense of the law of non-contradiction. We've had our run-ins in the past, but I'm firmly in her corner on this one.
As so often is the case with atheists (though not always; Nietzsche frequently hit the nail on the head), Rook is attacking a god that Christians have never believed in. No serious Christian theologian has ever claimed that God's omnipotence allowed him to do the logically impossible. As Paul Williams writes in his recent book The Unexpected Way: 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.
In other words, some things (like human beings flying without an airplane) are impossible because of something we lack (in this case, wings). Other things (like drawing a square circle) are impossible no matter how much power or ability we might acquire. God cannot make contradictory statements true in the same way at the same time not because God doesn't have enough power, but simply because such things cannot be true.
And as to the OP: I love Chick Tracts. I find The Death Cookie hilarious. I think we ought to read them as satire of a poisonous form of Christianity, even if the satire is unintentional.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liam
Shipmate
# 4961
|
Posted
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'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.
I believe it's wrong because I have common sense, reason, and a host of thinking and guidelines from places like the Bible to tell me so. Being relativist about myths and religious stories doesn't stop me from understanding the reality of human evil and suffering or appropriate responses to them.
Posts: 138 | From: Birmingham, UK | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Brussells Sprouts are dinky little cute baby cabbages and are lovely.
Jack Chick isn't.
End of topic?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
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.
But his belief system clearly requires that of him. So is it right or wrong?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Space Monkey beat me to it and I pretty much agree with him (or her?).
Erin et al, you are arguing against a strawman. I never claimed that “all paths are right” or that “all beliefs are equal.” A path that doesn’t lead to your desired destination is obviously wrong. If I want to encounter God, then a path of devil-worship isn’t likely to be helpful.
I think that all religions (including Christianity) are wrong in that they are imperfect descriptions of the nature of God. Perhaps Christianity is less factually inaccurate than some other religions, so you could say that it is “more right” in that sense. Of course, as we’ve all agreed, there is no way to prove the claim, so it must remain a personal belief.
On the other hand, the chief purpose of religion is not factual accuracy. Truth should not be simply defined as “facts”. Truth is an understanding of our nature, and God’s. Truth is faith, hope, and love. It is justice and mercy. It is about transformation and salvation. Those things aren’t necessarily about getting your facts straight.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
