Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[markedel]

Messianic Judaism...don't get me started with messianic Judaism. It's a scam to fool the innocent. If people want to preach more power to them, but no need to be so coy about it. Jews have enough troubles to deal with.

I might not share your beliefs, but I must admit,your compassion is impressive-it reveals genuine faith. Though being Jewish it's nice to know we don't need to worry about that-it's fairly easy for non-Jews to get a positive afterlife experience.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Though I must admit I'm curious, I don't think we should start up another discussion in this thread, so I'll leave it be.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
Blast! Mine plans foiled once again!

LOL!

A murrain on thee and thy plans, churl! 'Tho thou wieldest Andúril, know thee that mine hubby has one big honkin' machete from the wilds of South America, where he grew up (and a cool bolt-action .22 from his grandfather) and knows well how to use it! (and my oldest son has a 66-inch, 23-pound recurve bow and is very good with it - better than I am, the stinker!) Mend thy foolish ways, varlet, or thou shalt find thyself with some big ouchies!!

And your comment was a good intro to a rabbit trail that I intended to take a quick visit to today, before venturing further down the main track, explaining why I keep bringing up the authority thing (which I've done on purpose, for a very good reason IMHO)...


[rabbittrail]

As I said before, I have ZERO interest in debate, but a lot of interest in learning things, getting to know people better, and sharing some truths that have been tremendously important to me. One of the things that I've been praying for over the last 3 years or so was that God would help me to please HIM, and not be bound up in the people-pleasing trap that is so destructive to be in. (BTW, this does NOT mean that I don't try to please people - it just means that I don't feel compelled to base my actions on what people think.) God has really done tremendous things for me in this area, and I'm so grateful (and BTW, typically when one tries to please God, one ends up pleasing people, too - after all, things like "love your neighbor as yourself" and "consider others' needs as more important than your own" are all over the Bible).

Not too many years ago, I would have been cowed by someone speaking in an authoritative manner, such as Andúril has in these threads, especially early on (and I don't mean that as an insult, Andúril - I think you just naturally do that from your debating background), and I would have backed down in fear from any argument, or felt compelled to comply with whatever he suggested. Now, however, because my goal is to please God, I can step back and evaluate things properly before I take action. When Andúril said "Therefore, either you will provide some other reason(s) to support your claim of irrationality, or you will drop it.", as he did a few pages ago on this thread, my old response would have been "OMGoodness, I better do that!". Now, however, I can look at that statement and think "well, does he have any authority over me to tell me what to do here?" The answer is no - he is only a fellow Entmooter. The only responsibility I have to him is to treat him with respect.

(BTW, the Entmoot admins and mods have limited authority over me (I granted them this when I signed up for Entmoot and agreed to abide by their rules); if they ask me to do anything that conflicts with my convictions, I can respectfully decline; if they insist, then I would leave Entmoot, and they would no longer have authority over me. Thread starters have a little authority, too - that's why I started this thread, to comply with the previous thread starter's wishes.)

Anyway, when I told him that I didn't intend to do what he said I had to do (in his opinion), because I felt that I had other options open to me (although I don't think I said that then), he said that he only meant to tell me the options he thought I had. However, I didn't agree that the options he said I had were the only options that were open to me, and I pointed out that I had already explained why I thought his reply was irrational anyway, but he had missed it; so I took another course of action, which was to ask him if we could drop the point, since it started from a misunderstanding and it wasn't important to the main discussion anyway. He agreed, and we dropped it. (this is what happened to the best of my memory - please feel free to offer corrections if you think it needs it, Andúril.)

So all that to encourage anyone that is kind of scared by people who speak authoritatively to stop and think if that person actually has authority over you - if not, then you are absolutely free to decline what they suggest/demand and go with what you think is the right thing to do.

[/rabbittrail]

[Khamûl]

After a day of computer problems, I finally get a chance to reply to some things.

Originally posted by Eärniel
Alright so how about the people that lived on a deserted island AT THE TIME of Abraham? Have they been saved?

Honestly, I don't know. If you really want to know, I could ask my pastor.

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Instead of telling people they will go to Hell if they do not accept Jesus at their Lord and Savior, just enjoy your own faith in God, and leave others to their own religion. I know you might think that it is doing a kindness to 'warn' people that they will go to hell if they do not accept Jesus, but I frankly find it rather rude. I don't think it's compromising your beliefs to NOT tell people this, rather it's being. . .polite. Does that make sense?

I'm sorry if you think that impolite, but we are just following what is called The Great Commission: 15 He [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 15-16 NIV

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I could be wrong, but I think that the point about the people on the desert island and Abraham was that one could come to acknowledge God without a local pastor/church, not that it had been done in the past.

[Rían]

Yes, that was my point. I'm willing to bet my copy of LoTR that Earniel was making a joke (a funny play on the words in my post, bringing together my comments about Abraham and my comments on the people in the desert island scenario). My discussion on how it is possible for people to be saved before Jesus was born would also apply to those unfortunate denizens of the desert islands in the time of Abraham, just the same as their land-locked fellow humans and those on desert islands after the time of Abraham.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
The conclusion I see is that RÃ*an is incorrect in labelling the way I read that part of his post "an unnatural and forced way", and that the interpretation was justified.

I understand why you interpreted it the way you did, Andúril . I still think your interpretation was unnatural and forced in the context of general conversation, but it was certainly justified and understandable in the context of a debate. You're probably a very experienced debater, and precise and analytical thinking is second nature to you - do you ever consciously 'switch it off' for general conversation? I'm just kinda rambling here and thinking out loud.... I know that sometimes I have trouble 'switching out' of my 'engineering mode' of thinking and talking when I get back home on the mornings that I go in to consult - my husband will say "just relax!" but the 'ol brain just keeps clicking away in the analytical mode .... (whew, what a lousy sentence - I hope that made sense). See, now here I go being all precise in the second sentence of this post. I really think that most of the people on this thread would read his post(you're calling Gwaimir a 'he' - is that correct, Gwaimir?) to mean God can't be completely understood, instead of the way you interpreted it, but I could easily be totally wrong. (OMGOODNESS, I just used 'totally' - what a Californian I am )

Well, if I offended you, I'm very sorry. I'm wrong often enough. *sigh* I'm pretty smart in a rather narrow field, and pretty dense in many other ways (geography and history, especially - truly frightening how badly I get mixed up )

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
Anduril: I'm sorry, I didn't mean all of God, I was referring to the aspects of God which were in question. I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

No worries.

More:
*snip*

But the word omnipotence means "All-powerful". God is all-powerful; but not in the sense of doing anything, but rather in the sense of having all power, if that makes any sense. I'm sorry, that's the closest I can come to explaining what I mean in words, at least right now.

I am wary about continuing this discussion, since you have indicated that you are not confident that your definition makes sense, and that it doesn't quite correspond with what you actually mean.

Nevertheless, I'd like you to elaborate on the concepts. Distinguishing between a sense of "doing anything" and a sense of "having all power" seems, at a preliminary viewing, to be bordering on a game of semantics. There may be something there, but I think you could have been a little less vague.

Once you have done this, I should be able to respond to the rest of your post.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
Why Andúril, you naughty, naughty thing!

Please don't spank me! Wait...

More:
Here I asked people nicely to not respond to my post that was interrupted due to my youngest child getting home 20 minutes early, and I said I would finish it by Monday, and ... you quoted it and responded to it! Is it Tuesday where you are now?

Actually, it was 21h15 when I replied. I should have taken your time zone into account.

*Gets ready for spanking*

More:
(do you live in S. Africa, BTW? What time zone are you in? I'm in GMT-8).

Yep. GMT+2, or CAT.

This is going to hurt, innit? Excellent!

More:
*whacks Andúril over the head (gently) with her 20-year-old, falling-apart copy of LoTR*

Well that was certainly an anti-climax.

More:
I just got back from my kids' school, where I was helping out, and intended to settle back with my drink of choice (Dr. Pepper for hot days, tea w/ cream and sugar for cold days - since it's warm here today, I have a DP in front of me now) and post a few replies to you. Honest, I really did mean to! I feel that I've neglected our part of the discussion a bit, but whenever I log onto this thread, I keep seeing things from some of my favorite Entmoot friends that make my hair stand on end and/or my heart break, and I end up spending my Entmoot time responding to them, instead. Anyway, my intent was to answer you in the time I have before I have to pick up the kids, so here I go.

*hang on a sec, I'm going to scan back over this thread, and I'll start a new post*

I can't wait.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Khamul
I'm sorry if you think that impolite, but we are just following what is called The Great Commission: 15 He [Jesus] said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 15-16 NIV

Still, I find it awfully disrespectful of other people's beliefs to tell them they're condemned. I understand it would not be holding true to your beliefs not to believe that other people are condemned if they are not baptized, etc, but it's also not very. . .I'll use the word 'polite' again. . .as other people have strong beliefs that are not Christian. I'm not expecting you to suddenly stop, but I am pointing out that it can be seen as rude.

But, seeing as I don't plan on accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I'd best get back to arranging that cook-out in Hell with my friends

. . .and another question: doesn't it differ among the various sects of Christianity, who gets to go to Heaven and who doesn't? I recall something about the Puritans believing only certain people were pre-ordained for Heaven and everyone else is doomed.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
OK, Andúril, looking back to the original thread, I have no comment on your first post, but I must say that I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH YOUR SECOND POST!!

That's good to hear.

Chapter 1

More:
Next, on pg. 4, you quoted from my post, where I said "(or atheism, for that matter, which is also a belief system)", and you said "atheism is not a belief system". When I asked you what you thought it was, you said

This is one of the areas that we will continue the discussion on, n'est-ce pas?

Be my guest.

Chapter 2

On pg. 5, I said that by some defs of 'religion', that atheism could be considered a religion, but that I wouldn't bother to pick that nit because my main concern was :

same as above, as far as the quoted section goes (at least, I will comment further on this idea)

And I will gladly hear your comments

Chapter 3

Also on pg. 5, you asked if a single belief constituted a belief system (giving the example of 'the sky is red' and asking if I thought that was a belief system. You asked which dictionary I referred to when saying that atheism could be considered a religion by some defs. You also asked me to stipulate the belief of weak atheism.

Working from the last to the first - Now that I have seen your definition of 'weak atheism', I will not stipulate. We will need to discuss this definition further first.

No problem.

Re where the def comes from - Webster's dictionary.

Well, I don't see anything in the online definitions that indicate that atheism could be a religion. Were you using a hardcopy version?

Anyway, did you follow the link I included in a reply to BoP? Those are the definitions I use.

Re the 'sky is red' - No, I would not say that 'the sky is red' constitutes a belief system in the context of the discussion we were having.

That's good to hear.

Re the 'single belief' aspect, I will discuss that further in the context of atheism; I won't bother to discuss it in the case of 'the sky is red'. You may if you want to, but I would rather stick to the more important aspects of the 'single belief' comment, which is 'single belief' as related to atheism.

I have no problem with this.

Chapter 4

On pg. 6, I told you I was going to start a new thread out of respect to the thread starter's stated wishes for 'no argument'. I also disagreed with your opinion that "that is all" was "better" than "that's all" in Wayfarer's post .

New thread's been fun, hasn't it . And I still say that "that's all" is just fine, and even better than "that is all", because its informality is in humorous contrast with the formality of the first statement! But that's a matter of individual opinion, and not worth taking any more of my time.

And who did Wayfarer thank? Hmm?

Chapter 5

On pg. 7, we discussed academic qualifications.

If you don't mind sharing, why are you starting a course of study in Theology?

I don't mind at all.

I am pursuing a degree in Theology in order to become more informed (thus keeping misrepresentation of theological issues to a minimum), and to lend weight to my arguments. In the words of a Christian author (to me):

An atheist with a B.Th under his belt would be positively deadly.

The unfortunate aspect about the UNISA (University of South Africa) curriculum is that it is "outcomes-based" and all the assignments I have looked at so far require the point-of-view of a Christian, i.e. "How do these issues affect your faith on a day to day basis", etc. I wonder if they've ever had a non-believer study through them...

I intend on obtaining a doctorate in Theology, but it is early days.

Appendix

Well, I have to go pick up the kids - this post will just have to stand as it is, and I'll deal with anything I left out later tonight Does that finish up the issues from the first thread (some of which we transferred over here)?

I'm happy.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
LOL!

A murrain on thee and thy plans, churl! 'Tho thou wieldest Andúril, know thee that mine hubby has one big honkin' machete from the wilds of South America, where he grew up (and a cool bolt-action .22 from his grandfather) and knows well how to use it! (and my oldest son has a 66-inch, 23-pound recurve bow and is very good with it - better than I am, the stinker!) Mend thy foolish ways, varlet, or thou shalt find thyself with some big ouchies!!

Maybe this time you'll do it right.

More:
And your comment was a good intro to a rabbit trail that I intended to take a quick visit to today, before venturing further down the main track, explaining why I keep bringing up the authority thing (which I've done on purpose, for a very good reason IMHO)...

Yes, I was wondering at one point if you had authority issues as a youngster...

More:
As I said before, I have ZERO interest in debate, but a lot of interest in learning things, getting to know people better, and sharing some truths that have been tremendously important to me.

It might interest you to learn that things can be learnt through debate. But since you haven't had much experience in this area, I don't expect that you would have realized this just yet.

More:
*snip*

Not too many years ago, I would have been cowed by someone speaking in an authoritative manner, such as Andúril has in these threads, especially early on (and I don't mean that as an insult, Andúril - I think you just naturally do that from your debating background), and I would have backed down in fear from any argument, or felt compelled to comply with whatever he suggested.

Remember, however, that I have never debated in person, and my background extends to roughly one year in online debates (almost when I first joined the 'Moot).

More:
*snip*

Anyway, when I told him that I didn't intend to do what he said I had to do (in his opinion), because I felt that I had other options open to me (although I don't think I said that then), he said that he only meant to tell me the options he thought I had. However, I didn't agree that the options he said I had were the only options that were open to me, and I pointed out that I had already explained why I thought his reply was irrational anyway, but he had missed it; so I took another course of action, which was to ask him if we could drop the point, since it started from a misunderstanding and it wasn't important to the main discussion anyway. He agreed, and we dropped it. (this is what happened to the best of my memory - please feel free to offer corrections if you think it needs it, Andúril.)

I don't see any correction necessary.

More:
*snip*

You're probably a very experienced debater, and precise and analytical thinking is second nature to you - do you ever consciously 'switch it off' for general conversation?

Sometimes, but I normally end up with irrelevant one-liners and twisted examples of unimaginable chaos. See references to spanking, and the Ghost thread.

More:
*snip*

I really think that most of the people on this thread would read his post(you're calling Gwaimir a 'he' - is that correct, Gwaimir?) to mean God can't be completely understood, instead of the way you interpreted it, but I could easily be totally wrong.

Well, that would depend on whether readers glanced over his post, or actually read it.

More:
*snip*

Well, if I offended you, I'm very sorry.

*snip*

You haven't.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Andúril
No worries. I am wary about continuing this discussion, since you have indicated that you are not confident that your definition makes sense, and that it doesn't quite correspond with what you actually mean.

Nevertheless, I'd like you to elaborate on the concepts. Distinguishing between a sense of "doing anything" and a sense of "having all power" seems, at a preliminary viewing, to be bordering on a game of semantics. There may be something there, but I think you could have been a little less vague.

Once you have done this, I should be able to respond to the rest of your post.

As I stated before, that is really the best way I can think of to put it in words. I know what I mean, but I doubt anyone else does. And also as I previously stated, anything but the vaguest definitions of omnipotence is, in my opinion, beyond mankind, as we have not nor will be ever come close to it; it is certainly beyond me, no doubt about that.

Sorry, but that's the best definition I can come up with.

To Rian: Yes

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Upon re-reading, I realized taht part of my post could be interpreted in a way I certainly did not mean for it to be; when I said that I doubt any one else understands what I mean, I do NOT, by any means mean that the fault lies with them; rather, with my own inability to express my meaning.

[Andúril]

Gwaimir Windgem:
As I stated before, that is really the best way I can think of to put it in words. I know what I mean, but I doubt anyone else does.

So....you won't elaborate on the sense of "doing anything" and the sense of "having all power"?

In any event, I agree with you when you express your doubts as to whether anyone else knows what you mean.

More:
And also as I previously stated, anything but the vaguest definitions(sic) of omnipotence is, in my opinion, beyond mankind, as we have not nor will be ever come close to it;

Is your opinion shared by theologians and biblical scholars?

it is certainly beyond me, no doubt about that.

Yes, no doubt.

More:
Upon re-reading, I realized taht part of my post could be interpreted in a way I certainly did not mean for it to be; when I said that I doubt any one else understands what I mean, I do NOT, by any means mean that the fault lies with them; rather, with my own inability to express my meaning.

We're on a roll - once again I agree with you.

[Earniel]

Honestly, I don't know. If you really want to know, I could ask my pastor.

I would like to know but you don't have to go through to all that much trouble to find out for me.

I'm willing to bet my copy of LoTR that Earniel was making a joke (a funny play on the words in my post, bringing together my comments about Abraham and my comments on the people in the desert island scenario). My discussion on how it is possible for people to be saved before Jesus was born would also apply to those unfortunate denizens of the desert islands in the time of Abraham, just the same as their land-locked fellow humans and those on desert islands after the time of Abraham.

Part joke, part interest. So please hand me half of your LoTR copy. The thing is that if I take this logically, Jesus can only save those who know him and accept his sacrifice, meaning those that lived after since his sacrifice happened at a certain point in time. From there I can conclude that those who lived before Jesus don't get saved. Now if Abraham does get saved by his fate in God, how about those that lived before Jesus and have no way of knowing God since they are , for example, on a deserted island. If I follow the 'definitions' of being saved I read on this thread I must assume they can't be saved. To me that is rather (using EG's term ) impolite to send them all to hell. I may have gotten this wrong but that's the way I interpret it. So how do christians see this?

[Rían]

Oh, sorry, Eärniel - I thought my post addressed that question well enough, but I guess not. Can I keep my LoTR anyway, pretty please?? I guess I was thinking of another thread awhile back, "Did Iluvatar make Melkor Evil", where (IIRC) I addressed that issue at great length. However, since it appears that I sometimes DON"T "IIRC", I'll quote what I wrote back a few pages ago:

from RÃ*an's post a few pages ago
In the Bible, it says that God desires that all people would be saved, and that no one will have an excuse for not believing in Him (because He is absolutely just and fair); that He reveals Himself to people through nature and through the moral law written on people's hearts and through the witness of believers (like some of us here at Entmoot ) and things like that. One character attribute of God that is stated over and over is that He is just. The old complaint of "well, what of those people on a desert island somewhere that never heard of Jesus? How can they be saved?" is not a valid complaint, for Abraham (who came WAY before Jesus showed up on earth) was stated in the Bible to have been made righteous (which is what 'saved' means) through his faith. The Bible states that everyone who is saved is saved [by faith, through Jesus, but it is not limited to just repeating the "sinner's prayer" from some pamphlet (I think it would be a fairly safe bet to say Abraham didn't say the sinner's prayer from a pamphlet but we have it on God's authority that he is saved.)

Now you wrote:

by Eärniel The thing is that if I take this logically, Jesus can only save those who know him and accept his sacrifice, meaning those that lived after since his sacrifice happened at a certain point in time. From there I can conclude that those who lived before Jesus don't get saved. Now if Abraham does get saved by his fate in God, how about those that lived before Jesus and have no way of knowing God since they are , for example, on a deserted island. If I follow the 'definitions' of being saved I read on this thread I must assume they can't be saved. .)

my response:
The reason I gave Abraham as an example is that we have it on the authority of the Bible that Abraham was saved -- and he lived before Jesus was born, and couldn't have known Jesus!. So it can't be true that only those born after Jesus was born can be saved. Does that make sense? Now I'll try to explain how I believe that works.

I think where the misunderstanding arises is that you see verses like the ones I listed earlier:

10. That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved (Romans 10:10)

Now that verse is true, but it doesn't say that 'the absolute only way to be saved is to confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, etc.".

A complimentary verse shows how Abraham was saved (emphasis is mine for clarity):

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.

and

Galatians 3:6 and 9[/i]
Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. [which means he was saved] ... So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

So we are saved by faith. But is it just faith in anything? No, in this verse it is extremely clear that the ONLY way is through Jesus -

Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else [referring back to Jesus from 2 verses back] for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.

So we are saved by faith, but the ONLY pathway by which that was made possible is Jesus. So people, anytime and anywhere, may be saved by faith in God, even if they DON'T have a Bible, because God says in the Bible that He is revealed through nature, indwelling moral codes, etc., and that people do not have an excuse for denying Him; so given that He is just and righteous, then it follows that everyone has a fair chance. And I think I explained on the other thread that being all-wise and all-knowing (plus it's obvious, even to much lesser minds like mine ) that it's obvious that if He created people with free will, that there is the possibility of sin; so a way to 'pay the debt' must be provided. And Jesus, who is, like God, eternal (and was involved in creation) - basically said "I'll pay the debt at a given time on earth".

I better stop now, this is getting tremendously long, and I'm afraid not terribly coherent; I don't write as well as Tolkien does! I hope it's a good starting point, though, to answer your question, and please let me know what needs clarifying.

[Earniel]

I'm sorry RÃ*an, I did see your previous post but I interpretted it differently. You can keep your LoTR though. I'm not that evil.

Your new post gave me an answer but it also raises other questions. Now if I understand correctly this time people (any time any place but I'll leave that out for now) who do not know God or the bible can be saved since in a way they will know him through nature, moral codes, ect... That implies that they might know God in another context than the bible since they don't know the bible. Then how can you be sure that for instance the god of the jews or islamites isn't the christian god in another context? How can you be sure that they are disbelievers and will go to hell?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril It might interest you to learn that things can be learnt through debate. But since you haven't had much experience in this area, I don't expect that you would have realized this just yet.

I should have used more precise wording, but I was referring back to what I had said earlier on the subject, and didn't elaborate enough, apparently. OF COURSE I know that things can be learned through debate! I don't need to learn that, thank you. I have already managed to realize that, all by my little 'ol self. I believe I can safely say that my IQ is at least slightly higher than a sea cucumber's (as Coney said in another thread)

What I dislike, as I said earlier, is debate for debate's sake (and I should have worded it that way in my post - but I just said 'debate' this time - lazy me!). IOW, although I haven't participated in formal debates, I see plenty of them, and one thing that really irks me is that minor points often obscure the major issues. I think the expression "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel" is often applicable to the debates I've seen. That's why I prefer what I call "discussion", which is courteous as well as logical, but the GOAL is to learn, and we can drop points, even if we disagree, that we feel are not furthering the goal. (We've already done this, BTW, and I'm glad that we can).

I feel that there are so many little 'nits' to clear up in the discussion between the two of us that we will never get down to anything of much import because of the sheer amount of verbiage we have to wade through first. That's why I tried to 'clear off' some of the points where we differed - not because I couldn't defend my side, but because I felt that they were not of consequence, and I'm trying to get to things that are. We still haven't even TOUCHED the atheism/belief system thing, and I feel that there's still a ton of things I have to clear up.

BTW, your story on the "ghost" thread was hysterically funny!

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
*snip*

BTW, your story on the "ghost" thread was hysterically funny!

Why thank you.