Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
I really liked your story, Rian, but I think the issue is way deeper than just finding different paths to the truth.

But that was NOT my point at ALL, Guillaume - in fact, I think that view is false. I just haven't had time to say what my point WAS - I'm hoping to have time later on tonight

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Nerdanel,

But if the religion that you are "born into" is the wrong religion, then you won't get eternal life from being a part of it. Like, IF the christian God exists, and I'm born in Asia and believe in Buddah, is that good for me then? Will I have to go to hell because I was "born in" the wrong religion?

If the Christian God exists, then the only person or thing that will condemn to an eternity of hell is you. Unlike relativists, Christians see reality as made up of real things, and as such everything contains some measure of truth. All religions contain truth. Its no accident that there are many common elements shared by all faiths, even across Christian/non-Christian boundaries. Thus, there are elements in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, etc., that are truthful and worthwhile for everyone. If I were to think that no religion is the right one, it follows that all religions would be wrong... and if I thought that, I would be a bigot.

The words of the fathers of the second Vatican Council expresses very well the Catholic Church’s position regarding those of non-Christian religions:

Men look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human existence... What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behavior, and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what end does it serves? How can genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward follows death? And finally, what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and towards which we tend?

Throughout history even to the present day, there is among different peoples a certain awareness of a hidden power, which lies behind the course of nature and the events of human life. At times there is present even a recognition of a supreme being, or still more of a Father. This awareness and recognition results in a way of life that is imbued with a deep religious sense... Thus, in Hinduism men explore the divine mystery and express it both in the limitless riches of myth and the accurately defined insights of philosophy... Buddhism in its various forms testifies to the essential inadequacy of this changing world... So, too, other religions which are found throughout the world attempt in their own ways to calm the hearts of men by outlining a program of life covering doctrine, moral precepts and sacred rites.

The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and life (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life. (Nostra Aetate, 2.)

I’ve already mentioned earlier the Church’s stance toward those separated Christian communities. It is notable to quote the follow, though, in regard to your question:

In this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissension appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. (Unitatis Redintegratio, 3.)

Thus the Catholic Church holds that God offers his saving grace in many and various ways, and while the true Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, there are bounds of unity that extend beyond the confines of the Catholic Church to include even those of non-Christian belief. All people, in one fashion or the other, are offered sanctifying grace, and must either choose to co-operate in their own way or not to co-operate. One who has not heard the Word, or has heard the Word in such a condition as to not be able to receive it freely, can not be held at fault for not recognizing the Word.

I'm accusing me. I meant that I had a confirmation just to get gifts, and so did almost everyone else of my friends. I knew back then that I shouldn't be a part of that church. So I stayed a member for the wrong reason.

Ah, I see. Understood, and point well taken.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Am I discerning a hint of cynicism?

Yeah, that would probably be cynicism. What can I say? I'm just one damn cynical little bird. . .

I’ve thought and thought about my reply to this statement, Eruviel, and nearly thought about not replying at all, especially in light of my impolite statements above. But, frankly, I don’t see anything polite in your obvious innuendo in regard to a whole group of people, a group to which I belong and am an active member. Putting down religions is putting down particular people... of course the PC crowd is unwilling to admit this. I try very hard to understand others, especially their religious beliefs, mainly because everyone's beliefs have some to offer to strengthen my own beliefs. I don't attack others for being atheists, though I'll represent my own position, and I'll definitely defend my faith when it is cynically represented.

I'm sorry, what, I was putting down a religion? I don't think that's what I was doing. If you feel that I was, well, I'm sorry you feel that way. But that was not my intention. I was simply trying to work through some complicated issues, especially because I myself am not entirely and firmly clear on where I stand--excepting that I myself do not believe or belong to any sort of organized religion. But that's not what I'm trying to talk about. Anyway. What I'm saying is, yes, I probably was being a little cynical, but I'm not trying to offend. And if I am cynical, well, it comes from a long history of trying to deal with religion and understand it, at least understand where it comes from. And I am speaking from my own standpoint, which is purely atheist in the sense that I do not believe in the truth of any organized religion. I don't take offense at the fact that you believe in something (but I do take offense to open and blatant insults to my honor and knowledge, as we've both seen [and that's another matter, all its own, but I do believe and hope we have moved passed it.] though I feel I was probably acting a bit like dear Desiderius Erasmus, Dutch humanist, who could write all the satire in the world and take offense at the slightest of insults, whether real or imagined.) so I hardly think you should take offense at my belief, or lack thereof.

Its not a numbers game. If it was, then the RCIA process would be much shorter and easier.

I do not think I was necessarily calling it a number game, though I'm afraid it ended up sounding like that. Rather, what I was really getting at is that the Church would not want to lose believers, not in the sense of losing numbers, but in the sense of (as they would see it) losing more souls, and watching more people leave who could be saved. Does that make more sense? I really did not wish to imply that it was a number game. Furthermore, as you have said before, such splits are bad, and losing believers is simply part of that kind of splitting, yes?

In the end there are only two options: life or death. No one in the church to which I belong forces anyone to choose one or the other. That’s up to each individual person, whether they are a member of the Church or not. The Church to which I belong does not force parents to bring their babies to church to be baptized. Parents seem to make that decision, themselves. The Church to which I belong doesn’t even force people to come church if they don’t want. How can it? Are there church police?

Well, I suppose if you believe that lack of baptism leads to "death" then one would want to baptize their children. It's just that it could potentially be a source of guilt later on in life if one was baptized and wants to reject their religion.

So I fail to see how the Church to which I belong limits anyone’s freedom. On the other hand, this Church provides her members with even greater freedom, by bringing to focus the choices that one must make in life and grace to strengthen their spirits.

Well I'm glad you believe in free choice, then.

More to follow. . .

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

All of us, Catholic and not, need to start working together on the big issues. It is up to each Christian community to take care of their own, to eradicate poverty and want in their own communities by sharing all things in common. On the big issues, like social and legislative action, issues like abortion, capital punishment, social welfare, etc... we should act together to represent the Gospel that we all believe in. We must remain in dialogue with each other, and make efforts to share our experiences. We have to make a concerted effort to present a united front.

Wait, wait. . .so, you're saying that religious beliefs should influence big issues like abortion, capitol punishment, etc? And that people should forget the material world and focus on their belief and whatnot? So, should we abandon some of the ideals our country was founded on (i.e. seperation of church and state) and live in what would essentially be a theocracy? Please, inform me if I am misinterpreting!

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Wait, wait. . .so, you're saying that religious beliefs should influence big issues like abortion, capitol punishment, etc? And that people should forget the material world and focus on their belief and whatnot?

Of course people should consider their religious beliefs concerning public issues. Religion isn’t a private affair, its a public affair. A religion isn’t worth a tin penny if it does not encompass all aspects of a person’s life. The separation between church and state is not intended to remove one’s religious beliefs from public life, it is intended to limit the power of the State from interfering in someone’s right to practice her religion and represent her religion in public. All religions have a duty and obligation to contribute to the public life of a free nation.

Edit to add: Forget the material world? Well, I can’t speak for the Buddhists, but my faith doesn’t allow me to forget about the material world. However, there are priorities. Some people place their priorities in this passing world, others place priority on that which does not pass away.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Of course people should consider their religious beliefs concerning public issues. Religion isn’t a private affair, its a public affair. A religion isn’t worth a tin penny if it does not encompass all aspects of a person’s life. The separation between church and state is not intended to remove one’s religious beliefs from public life, it is intended to limit the power of the State from interfering in someone’s right to practice her religion and represent her religion in public. All religions have a duty and obligation to contribute to the public life of a free nation.

Well, actually. . .no. I disagree entirely. Because, well, you say religion isn't worth anythign if it does not encompass all aspects of a person's life. Well, yes, fair enough, that makes sense. But I don't believe that religion should affect public policy, because then you are forcing your ideals and morals based on religious principle on people of with different beliefs and different religions. I can only speak for Americans here, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) but as far as I know the way our country is built is in acknowledgement of the fact that we do not all hold the same beliefs and views on things. You say that religions should contribute to the public life of a free nation--very well, and it can, so long as people are not required to adhere to practices that they do not believe in or agree with. Yes, the State should be limited in interfering in someones' right to practice religion, but just the same, religion should be limited in being able to interfere in the way non-adherents live their lives.

Edit to add: Forget the material world? Well, I can’t speak for the Buddhists, but my faith doesn’t allow me to forget about the material world. However, there are priorities. Some people place their priorities in this passing world, others place priority on that which does not pass away.

Oh, sorry, I what I meant was place greater priority on the temporal world than the spiritual. I should exxagerate less.

Random additional note:
I actually like a lot of beliefs in Buddhism, and were it not for both my dislike of organized religion and that I disagree with a few points and find flaws in some, I would probably be Buddhist. Part of what I agree with is seeing the impermanence of the world we live in (see my signature ), but the way I see it, it is still the world we live in, and whether it truly matters in the end or not, I do not want to throw away everything that has any meaning to me in this world (part of why I am not Buddhist) because the world may be impermanent and transitory, but I find meaning and beauty in it all the same.

...just a bit of my own philosophy, just for fun

[Rían]

Artanis and Guillaume -
Thanks for your thoughts on the point of my story, and especially thanks to Artanis for being so patient with my odd little ways of answering her questions. The main points that you two came up with were not what I had in mind, tho - I probably should have phrased the question more exactly, because it was too vague. A better thing to ask would have been: what do you think is the most important thing that happened in the story? And I'll just go ahead and answer.

I think if you asked a child what the most important part of the story was, they would say "the princess and the king got back together and lived happily ever after". And I think the child would be right. I don't think the hard struggle to get there would have been a favorite part, and I don't think there was an indication of different paths to the king; the path to the king was the one that the king made himself, so there was only one path, IMO. The goal - being reunited - was what made all the hard work and suffering worth going through.

So a very relevant part of the answer to your question, IMO, is that God's GOAL in His dealings with us is always a restored relationship. Our choice to sin has rightly separated us from a holy and perfect God, and His communication with us is to do everything possible to restore the relationship. I see this over and over in both Old T. and New T. - NEVER is God interested in purely actions, but ALWAYS in heart and relationship.

Verses in the Bible run like "for God so LOVED the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have eternal life"; "but God demonstrates His own LOVE for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us...", and the list goes on and on. (I'm pretty tired now so those aren't exact quotes, but are very close, and I could give a lot more if you wanted)

There are NO verses that I've ever come across that read like this: "God just loves rules and only likes people if they follow rules, and the more exactly they follow rules, the better He likes them." No, you see, like the second verse above, that God loves PEOPLE in spite of the fact that they have sinned, and also you see that God GAVE rules in the first place ONLY for our good.

So as far as things like how some churches say that playing cards is bad and others say it's ok, I really think it would be more correct for the leaders to say "after thinking about this and praying about this, I feel that it's wrong for people to play cards" or vice versa. And actually, to go even further, IMO it could be perfectly fine for one person to play and another not to play, because we see in Scripture over and over that the issue is the underlying heart attitude. One person could play in perfect innocence and fun, while another person could really be tempted to cheat and get angry, so they should probably NOT play until they get that area in their life a little more under control.

So to me, it says NOTHING against the fact that there is absolute truth just because different churches have some different opinions. Some are right in some areas, and some are wrong in some areas.

Originally posted by Artanis
But see, the reason I asked you this question is this: From the pov of someone who is not a Christian, seeing Christians take quite the opposite views on issues such as homosexual marriages and female priests, with both sides saying that they are doing the will of God, it is not quite - logical. So when I say at least one of them must be wrong, it is not only out of jest.

Well, I completely agree with you in this area - one must be wrong - and I would say the one that goes against what's explicitly in Scripture would be wrong. You usually see reasonings like "well, times have changed" - but that reasoning would let you throw out anything you wanted to, so I don't see how it's any good. And hearts have not changed, anyway, and the Bible always deals with heart issues - that's why it's still totallly relevant after 2000 years.

I'm sorry if this is incoherent - I'm rather tired, so let me know if I need to clear anything up or elaborate more. But again, I think that the goal of God's dealings with mankind is restored relationship, not rules, but the rules reflect an absolute truth, and things will always go better when one follows the rules, because that's how we're designed.

But then again, there's that very interesting passage in Corinthians, again, IIRC, where Paul talks about eating meat offered to idols, and that is the balance to the whole rules idea - but I'm too tired now, I'll try to do it tomorrow, because it's really another important part of my answer.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

But I don't believe that religion should affect public policy, because then you are forcing your ideals and morals based on religious principle on people of with different beliefs and different religions. I can only speak for Americans here, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) but as far as I know the way our country is built is in acknowledgement of the fact that we do not all hold the same beliefs and views on things. You say that religions should contribute to the public life of a free nation--very well, and it can, so long as people are not required to adhere to practices that they do not believe in or agree with. Yes, the State should be limited in interfering in someones' right to practice religion, but just the same, religion should be limited in being able to interfere in the way non-adherents live their lives.

Why are you so worried about someone else’s religious beliefs infringing on your civil liberties? If the constitution is doing its job, by protecting all people from the despotism of the majority, then you have nothing to worry about.

Look at it this way, if people can vote for Arnold based solely on the fact that they liked the Terminator movies, then you better bet that I can vote for someone because they are against abortion based on my religious beliefs. This isn’t imposing my religion on you. The constitution protects your voice as well as mine. While I’m free to vote for someone based on the color of her hair, you are free to vote for against the same person for whatever reason you think is important. Its civic responsibility to involve myself, and my personal and public beliefs, in public debate. It is some people’s opinion that if I should be opposed to something based on my beliefs that this somehow threatens their civil liberty... what this demonstrates is their fear that the constitution won’t do its job, or they don’t like the fact that the constitution that affords them the freedom to enter into public debate, affords the same freedom to others that don’t share their views.

To say that my beliefs can’t be voiced in public because someone who doesn’t share those beliefs feels this is an infringement on their civil liberties is a lie that is the foundation of despotism. You are not allowed, under the rights afforded by our constitution, to silence any voice in the public debate, and if we allow religious voices to be silenced under the guise of supporting the constitution, then the very founding principles of that document are rejected.

There’s no simpler way to put this: the constitution protects all people, and affords to all citizens the rights to represent their beliefs, religious or otherwise, in public. To say that the constitution limits your or my voice in the public debate in anyway is wrong. This is a grave, and extremely dangerous, misinterpretation of the constitution.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Good gods, I never said that! Again, I think you're misinterpreting. I never said your opinions, whatever they may be based upon, should be excluded because they're based on religion. Please tell me where I said your voice should be limited? What I said is that policy should not be made based on an ideal or belief that is not held by the whole population. But now I'm just getting in to my own personal ideals. But I think you were misinterpreting what I said. What I really object to is the idea of groups (factions ) forming based on religious ideals. If that makes sense. I mean, yeah, groups form, people lobby or support someone for election, but when the group is trying to, say, reform the country so that we are more religously sound, that gets really squicky.

And I'm going to stop now, because we're getting rather off-topic, and I really am going to have to admit that anything to do with the US government has gone through my head like a sieve, and I don't want to make myself sound any more stupid than I already have. THe stuff I remember is for some reason centered mostly around theology, philosophy, Japanese history, and early Europe. Not US government. Er.

[Artanis]

Hi Guillaume, thanks for your thoughts on my question. And RÃ*an, I've read your posts, and I'll think about what you've said and respond later, right now I've been drinking too much Aquavit.

[Rían]

OK - Merry Christmas, everyone! I'll be back in a few days, hopefully not too many pounds heavier!

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Merry Christmas, Rian and everyone else here that celebrates it!

Hey, anyone have any thoughts of free will and salvation? Hmm, will read Rian's story again. That was interesting, and then will write.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Merry Christmas to all!

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Merry Christmas all, and Happy New Year. I'm moving on Saturday, so I'll be away for awhile. Our discussions here have been great, and God bless all of you!

--Dave

PS Once again there is nothing wrong with religiously based PACs... if the ACLU and Greenpeace can do it, we Christians should have the same right.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal

PS Once again there is nothing wrong with religiously based PACs... if the ACLU and Greenpeace can do it, we Christians should have the same right.

The ACLU and Greenpeace are not religious organizations.

And must I repeat myself again? There's nothing stopping you from forming groups. If don't like it, well, it's my problem, isn't it? I just don't like the idea of laws that restrict my freedom based on a religiously based morality. (i.e. abortion. But that's for another thread. . .) That's all I was saying, le Marechal.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

EG, a quick OT question, since I bet you'd know the answer: What language would the people in the area of Hungary Dracula is set in have spoken at the timeframe of the book?

I don't think he was saying they were religious organizations; I believe his point was that there are nonreligious ones, so there's nothing wrong with religious ones, either. I could be wrong, though.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal


[One who has not heard the Word, or has heard the Word in such a condition as to not be able to receive it freely, can not be held at fault for not recognizing the Word.

Is this the doctrine known as Invincible Ignorance?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes; those in Invincible Ignorance of the Good News of Christ and of His Church sometimes have Baptism of Desire.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
EG, a quick OT question, since I bet you'd know the answer: What language would the people in the area of Hungary Dracula is set in have spoken at the timeframe of the book?

Dracula the book or Vlad Tepes? I'll assume you mean the book. . .
They would have spoken Romanian, I think. I don't know for sure, though. I think in the book when Harker is traveling to the castle, isn't there that bit with him in the inn and he hears a more eclectic mix of languages? Oh, and I think Transylvania was part of Romania, then, too. I could be wrong; I claim no expertise on the subject; what I know of Dracula is more because it's my friend's hobby than mine ANyway, we could continue this on the Dracula thread if we need to discuss it further. I'm honoured you asked me, though

Oh, and thanks for the clarification. Right. le Marechel, I think I may have to retract a statement and rephrase another. It's the actual policy, not the religious organizations, that I have a legitimate problem with.

And, if I'm not completely out of it and it hasn't been explained already, could someone explain this invincible ignorance thing for me? I'm not quite sure I understand. It's a way to hold people who have not heard of Christ and God and whatnot not accountable for their lack of knowledge? Does that mean they can be saved without ever hearing the Word?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Oh, yeah, Romania...I knew that, I really did. I just didn't remember. See title. Thanks.

From A Catholic Dictionary:

Ignorance, Invincible. The lack of an element of knowledge, which is not to be ascribed to want of due diligence on the part of the subject. Thus a man educated in Protestant surroundings would probably be invincibly ignorant of the Immaculate Conception. Since such ignorance cannot be dispelled by the use of ordinary diligence, it is in itself free from blame and no bad action done as a result thereof can be a formal sin; the doer not knowing its malice it is involuntary and not imputable to him.

Salvation...ii. Outside the Church. "Outside the Church, no salvation." [Gwai-note: also known as "Extra ecclesiam nulla sales", IIRC]. This dogma refers to those who are outsidfe the Church by their own fault. There is a command to enter the Church, which is the prescribed way to Heaven. He who refuses to join the Church which Christ founded, recognizing that Christ commanded adhesion to his Church, is in the way of perdition. (Ri, you're probably closer to salvation than me.) But those who are in invincible ignorance will not be condemned merely on account of their ignorance. "It is to be held as of faith that none can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church...but nevertheless it is equally certain that those who are ignorant of the true religion, if that ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty in the matter in the eyes of the Lord." (Pius IX, allocution of Dec. 9, 1854). Those non-Catholics who are saved are in life outside the visible body of the Church, but are joined invisibly to the Church by charity and by that implicit desire of joining the Church which is inseparable from the explicit desire to do God's will."