|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It seems like under this view, you get a free pass to do almost anything if you're a Christian, but you can never be good enough if you're a nonbliever. It's the classic problem of the altruistic atheist and the faithful serial killer. Does the serial killer get into heaven just because he believes in Jesus? Does the atheist who starts charities and does real, tangible work fighting disease, hunger, and poverty get sent to hell? If so, is God really Just? This is really only a problem for those who believe in exclusive salvation. Origen Adamantius was tossin' his balls at this kind of infantile thinking in the 3rd century.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Helsing that's a very good post, but GAINING is coming from Christian background, just one very influenced by American evangelicalism. But your overall point is bang on - a person's faith should challenge as much as it comforts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:It should not require bending over backwards and baseless speculation to explain away problems so you can continue in your faith. The one true religion would not have this many inconsistencies or mistakes. The real God would not be this incomprehensible if it were required that we must follow his every command. I am all but ready to declare once and for all that Christianity is impossible to be true. Using historical context and moral common sense is hardly "bending over backwards" or "baseless speculation". Why do you think God even desires "one true religion"? How can anything be outside of His control? How could only one group of people be right? Why would anyone be punished for living exactly as He meant them to?? Seriously dude, it's totally ok to not be Christian. You may not be suited for it, since you seem to find problems and inconsistencies everywhere. Unbelievers are no better or worse off than believers, we're all in the same boat. But this is a pretty good thread, with lots of good posts to read (unlike kyrie's, which is funnier, but has like, a only a handful of good posts), so thanks for that! It's certainly made me thankful to live in the cold frozen north; all that wretched exclusivity and punishment fetish of dixieland, yikes. Could really mess a person up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Muslims don't believe the Prophet, peace be upon him, wrote the Qur'an, he recited it. His literate companions wrote it down and collected it. "Why not believe something else?" can be asked of anyone. By accepting the virtue of doubt and having real empathy for others, one is not trapped in some either-or position regarding other faiths - we're all trying to figure poo poo out, go with whatever works best. For some this means Christianity, others Islam, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
He's not the only one. Where, pray tell, does the Bible claim that?Krotera posted:It sounds to me ("virtue of doubt") you feel like being uncertain makes you better off religiously than being certain does, and you seem to think it's the case because everyone has personal reasons to believe one thing or another, and asking about those personal reasons and expecting to be satisfied is either not empathetic or unfruitful. But if you don't feel it's reasonable to believe one religion excluding others, I don't think you're one of the people he's speaking to, and if you think it's acceptable to reject other religions in favor of a particular one, but not acceptable to ask why, then it just sounds like you don't like when people argue about this sort of thing, either because it's gauche or because it won't work. I do feel my faith is more secure because I accept that it could be wrong, so I perhaps have more mental/emotional leeway than someone who refuses to accept the possibility. Not sure if that's what you meant by "better off religiously". When I say doubt is a virtue, I'm emphasizing the importance of questioning our beliefs, be they spiritual or political or whatever. I'm not saying that it's not acceptable to ask questions, quite the opposite, so I don't know where your getting any of that from. So, my take one the concept of divine revelation is that it can occur in all languages and customs, in different forms and by different means. This doesn't mean that all claims are equally true, they have to be looked at and considered carefully. That's how I believe in universal salvation, for example: it's a very old claim within my community, I respect and trust the people who have proclaimed it, and it makes sense to me regarding the nature of God as I understand him and my life experiences. And accepting that I could be wrong on that particular issue means only exactly that. I could be, but I don't think I am.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
nucleicmaxid posted:
 I see you've already been taken to task over interpreting those passages, so I will just point out that the Catholic Church has never claimed the Bible is infallible or "completely true" (in the sense that everything happened 100% exactly as described). By all means, point out their arguments otherwise. Questions for everyone: if Christians were/are concerned with having a literal reading of the Sacred Library, and if through them the Almighty desired a single authoritative revelation, then why include four Gospels that disagree with each other? Sure, there is agreement over broad strokes, but none of the details line up, and these were produced out of traditions passed down by the people who were there! Yes, a court of law faces the same problems determining who did what when and how, but if A Single Literal Undisputed Truth is the goal, how do we explain the canonization of a plurality of narratives? Krotera posted:
No, 'question everything' is my position, but I'm not always the clearest poster. I was essentially answering WEIGHT's question of "Why?" with "Why not?", regarding choosing Christianity even if there is no eternal damnation. It doesn't matter - Christians and atheists and pagans all come to the same end. I go with Catholicism because I was raised in it and it has influenced the society and ideologies that I live under, so it makes sense to me and I enjoy it for the most part. GW is unsatisfied with the strain of religion he/she was familiar with (who could blame themm?), which is why I encouraged them not to worry about it, because no one goes to hell anyways, which is a very old if often ignored dogma within Christianity. I think I said it in kyrie's zeolot thread, but this world is the only hell anyone will ever know, and God's challenge to us is to make it a heaven. Which we will certainly struggle to do if we're constantly trying to convince each other "you're all hosed up cuz you're not more like me". quote:There are a lot of religions whose really basic tenets are mutually exclusive, even if they also have common parts. Disagree. Practices and language are very different, but that's simply the nature of human custom. The Golden Rule is called such is because it occurs everywhere, no group of people have ever come up with a better moral. So God has given the same inspiration across countless nations, and we are free to go with whatever iteration suits us best, be it secular or spiritual, foreign or familiar. edit: QuoProQuid posted:EDIT: I'll also recommend A Canticle for Leibowitz which, while fiction, is one of my favorite books and discusses issues like faith and belief. A good portion of the novel discusses how divine reality can manifest itself in mundane ways and there is an extended debate on God's existence that leaves the reader sympathetic to both sides. Seconding this, Canticle owns. Fiction is a great way to explore these issues, but easier than trying to read medieval philosophers imo. God sends you a direct message, what do you do?!: http://vimeo.com/104193227 Blood Boils fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Dec 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
So you gonna post evidence that "the Catholic Church and Protestants overwhelmingly (emphasis mine) claim the Bible is infallible and completely true" or what?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
That refers to the Church's specific moral and theological interpretations of the Bible, which it arrives at through the following process http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm Saying the collection is without error isn't the same as making a literalist reading of the books within it. The Church takes into account the types of genres and the historical context that is in play when dealing with the Bible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/do-you-read-the-bible-literally.html You've uncovered our secret, Vatican Karate Gorillas have been dispatched to your location
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Silly, gorillas don't exist, haven't you read, The Bible?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Post more links that go against your argument, it's really funny!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Like I said, people should go with whatever faith works best from their point-of-view. Islam is dope, maybe I would be a Muslim if I was more familiar with it's tradition and concepts. Alas! I am a product of my time and place. Plus, my Muslim and Jewish brother and sisters don't really anthropomorphize the Almighty enough for my tastes. Gotta get absurd with that poo poo yo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:...??? Thou shalt have no other gods before me? What??? QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, worship the same divine reality. There is no such thing as "the wrong God."  ya don't want to end up looking like CommieGIR. Reading carefully is key to understanding.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
LaughMyselfTo posted:Not anthropomorphizing God is a major theological point of Islam. Yup, although they certainly use human characteristics to describe "Him", as do Jews and Christians. Many thinkers of theses tradtions acknowledge that God is beyond our languages' ability to fully explain or understand, but through continuous thought and prayer and argument and debate over the long centuries we can figure out some useful approximations. To me, this means believing that God has a literal human aspect, like a very specific dude, but that is my bias as a Christian. I'm fine that other monotheists drop the Jewish peasant from Roman Palestine, it's close enough. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I did read carefully, you're ignoring my point. This is nonsensical. God Himself prescribes that we must not worship anything but Him. I feel like this wouldn't be such a strongly emphasized rule if it weren't possible. Read more carefully. QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, worship the same divine reality. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, WORSHIP THE SAME DIVINE REALITY. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, WORSHIP THE SAME DIVINE REALITY. There is no such thing as "the wrong God." QuoProQuid posted:All faiths, particularly the Abrahamic faiths, WORSHIP THE SAME DIVINE REALITY. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE WRONG GOD" I'm quoting QuoProQuid because I agree with what he/she says here. I'm not very familiar with Eastern concepts, but from what little I've heard, nibbana or brahman share some similarities with the Western God. Good enough I say! Now obviously even within every religion, there are disputes, like whether or not the Christian god would send anyone to hell for example. Figuring out which interpretations work best for a person depends a lot on the reading comprehension, morals and reason of that individual. External factors too, like where you were born and raised. I reject Hell and Biblical literalism because from my perspective, they are foolish nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 01:58
|
|
?
|
It's me, im god
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Yes, of course. You are actually correct here. I'm sure that's a new experience for you, but don't be frightened! Embrace it, learn from it, become it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Y'all infidels give up too easily. Any thread is what you make of it - want it to be good and interesting? Then make interesting and good posts. This is from a ways back, apologies for the late reply, the holidays took precedence. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:No, seriously, I am not misreading anything. I understand exactly what you are saying. You posit that we (meaning any human who looks toward anything supernatural at all) are all worshiping the same thing, even if we call it different things or conceptualize it differently. There is a correct version of God, which we are all perceiving, but just maybe not fully or accurately. Christians, Hindus, Egyptians, and Pastafarians alike are actually talking about the same thing, just in different ways. You do seem to sort of understand part of the universalist perspective, but then you ask questions and make statements that seem like you don't. I'm sorry for the implications that your reading is poor, it's just as likely that I haven't been clear enough. I bolded the parts in your post that I think are causing the misunderstanding. God transcends human ability to completely describe or truly comprehend, we have to be content with hints and anthropomorphizations. You got that right. But remember that holy texts are written by people, who are interpreting their experiences with the divine within their temporal contexts. Universalism simply doesn't consider the "only mine is true" to be a correct interpretation. This seems to be where your having trouble. Remember, the Bible is a record of the evolving Christian understanding of God. That's why there are stories where pagan practices and concepts are rejected, much more quickly and sharply than they would have been in actuality (because it's mythology, not history). And as a Catholic I'm not even limited to the Bible, I can keep on growing, adding insights and revelations from any time and place. quote:How do you separate the false claims about what God is from the true? Have you made some mistakes in interpreting what The Thing is and what it wants? If so, how can you be sure that the interpretation, "it's all the same God, and he doesn't care exactly what version you worship" is a correct one? Your own doctrine disagrees with that quite strongly. Again, claims are separated by interpretation, the same careful thinking you apply to anything. I don't think I've made any mistakes, but I accept the possibility. No, the Church is adamant that any honest and good person concerned with Truth and Justice is walking in the big ole light. We do still allow for Cyprian's petty salvation, if only to keep the jerks from getting too upset, but as any child can point out, exclusion does not jive with the Golden Rule or the concept of Forgiveness, not at all.  Let's see if we can get some interesting posts: What would qualify, to you reading this, as a genuine revelation? What conditions would disqualify? Would God himself have to take a body, 12 feet tall and robed with flowing manes, and bust through your living room wall Kool-Aid man style to shout at you, with an actual voice? Careful guidance under a yogi like mystic? Reading a bunch of books? Smoking dope and listening to loud music? If I haven't been clear in this thread, my position is that the revelation itself is more important than the means that it occurs. The "truthiness" hinges on how much it makes sense, is useful/moral/etc. I think it can come out of the blue to people who weren't even aware they were looking for it, and others it could take a life-time of study. Most people I know IRL are split on the the drug question: some think that using substances like hallucinogenic drugs would invalidate a revelation, others think that it grants special insights that can't be accessed sober. I think it depends on whether the thought stands up to scrutiny once the effects wear off. I get the impression that for some of you, the revelation would have to be in a book, an absurdly comprehensive and authoritative book and we all speak the same language and there is no disagreement about it, so I guess we aren't even humans anymore?? This is probably unfair, but thats the impression I get from some the criticisms offered.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 02:29
|
|