Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Coney
Another question: I have read that Hell is simply a time of redemption...........when the sins are "purged" from the soul then Heaven (and therefore God) will accept you......yet Hell is often described as "eternal".......any comments on this?

Time for my two cents. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that purgatory is a Catholic belief. As Baptists, we believe that after you die, you go eternally to Heaven or eternally to Hell.

Originally posted by Coney
But one can step either side, jump over or even walk backwards from "the sewer" and still not end up in the crud Christianity does not seem to give this option......it seems to me to be a choice of "come to me or wallow in the excrement".

Continuing with the analogy, the sewer is death. You can't backtrack from or sidestep away from death. It's something everyone has to face.

[Coney]

Continuing with the analogy, the sewer is death. You can't backtrack from or sidestep away from death. It's something everyone has to face.

Ah the finer points of this analogy may have passed me by...........true that death is something everyone has to face (if anyone finds themselves to be the exception to this rule pls pm me ).......but the way we aproach death should not be "believe or bedammed" IMO.

Time for my two cents. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that purgatory is a Catholic belief. As Baptists, we believe that after you die, you go eternally to Heaven or eternally to Hell.

To be honest.........I don't know the difference between Catholic and Baptist doctrine Khamul.........curiosity and to be educated is the main reason I am participating in this thread (ok and maybe a tiny bit of questioning )

[Khamûl]

Ok, so maybe that part of the analogy didn't work so well. I suppose it'd probably be better to say that you jumped into the air and unless something happens, you're going to go through and into the open sewer. One of two things is going to happen: 1) you fall in or 2) someone quickly puts the cover on, saving you. This is essentially what happens when you bring God into your life. You realize that you are in trouble and that you can't do it alone and He saves you.

[Rían]

Anduril -
OK, I'm ready to wade in a bit more, but first I wish to inform you that I intend to "play" by my own rules, and not any that you try to put on me, because you have no jurisdiction over me. My intent on this thread is to engage in some intelligent and polite discussion with the goal of greater understanding on both sides, and I am willing to spend some of my precious free time to achieve that goal, because I believe that people are incredibly valuable beings created by God and worthy of great respect. I am NOT willing to engage in debate for the sake of debate, because I think that that is a waste of my time, and I have absolutely NO interest in debate for debate's sake.

I see you like debating, however (I checked your member profile a few days ago to see if I could find out if you were American, because I could hardly believe how much trouble we were having trying to communicate ). I found out that under "interests", you listed "online debate" and "porn".

Re the second - well, I'll certainly know how to pray for you - I will pray that your eyes will be opened to see (1) what a horrible and destructive thing porn is, to EVERYONE involved; and (2) what a beautiful, wonderful, fun thing sex is in the context of a committed marriage.

Re the first - you've already used some debate terminology in our discussion. My only exposure to debate was in a high school English class, and I heartily detested that class (debate is an activity, like playing hockey or square dancing, that just doesn't interest me). I wouldn't expect you to know specialized radar lingo (for example, without looking it up anywhere, can you give me an example of a valid 3/A code, or tell me the name of the mode that military aircraft use?); would you please back off on the debate terminology? You may, of course, use multisyllabic words - I'm not stupid, just not trained in debate. Again, my goal here is intelligent discussion to further knowledge on both sides; if you just want to engage in a debate, then please let me know, because I will bow out and spend time on more interesting things.

That said, let me respond to part of your post. *looks it over* - well, I better start another post, because there's so much I disagree with that I'm sure I'll hit the length limit in this post....

[Rían]

Anduril (con't) - I suppose I better put in numbers again so I can refer to your statements a little more clearly....

Originally posted by Anduril
(1)Calling a misrepresentation is not an indication of irrational argumentation. You misrepresented my position (set up a straw man), and I called you on it. I admit, however, that my tone could have been less harsh.

(2)The structure of your statement indicated that you thought my reply was irrational because:

• I used an "insulting" expression, and
• I failed to explain it.

I responded by saying that I didn't see anything insulting about it, and that the reason for its usage was obvious, but I did so by decontructing (sic) the argument into its premises and conclusions. I have since elaborated.

Additionally, what might be deemed an unexplained insult is not necessarily irrational, since, for instance in our case, the "insult" was essentially created by your subjective interpretation, and the lack of explication was an oversight of mine, for reasons already stipulated.

(3) Therefore, either you will provide some other reason(s) to support your claim of irrationality, or you will drop it.Two things:

• Your statement was "logically weak", or fallacious. Your post contained the following:Firstly, this is a misrepresentation of my position, and secondly, I have no idea how you came to conclude that it was my position, since nothing in this thread indicates explicitly nor implicitly that "I know that there's not a God".
• I agree that I might have been less impolite. (4) This has become difficult after having to explain my actual position to a legion of individuals who have made the same mistake as you have - a now tedious and frustrating task.

I have already done so - in this post and before. (5) Were you not aware that "straw man" is merely a term used in logical argumentation to indicate misrepresentation? Had your straw man progressed to a developed stage (which it had not), I might have found myself having to defend strong atheism. (6) Luckily I nipped it in the bud.

(1) - Y'know, I think we can retire this part of the discussion because I think we're talking about two different aspects of your statement. What I was responding to was the word "belief" when you said "Atheism is not a belief system". I've spent a lot of time on other threads discussing "belief" vs. "knowledge", esp. scientific knowledge. What I was thinking was saying, in a humorous way, "What, is it a knowledge system?"; my point being that a person cannot KNOW that there is no God. I did not misrepresent your position, I think that there was just a misunderstanding on both sides. Now your objection seems to be whether or not atheism is a belief system. Shall we save time and just retire this point and just start discussing the belief system aspect of things?

(2) - The structure of my statement may have indicated that to YOU; however, I don't think my sentence reads that way at all. However, since YOU did, let me clarify - of course, using an insulting term doesn't make a reply irrational! It just makes it unpleasant. I was objecting to your lack of an explanation. Again, can we retire this and just move on to whether or not atheism is a belief system?

(3) - Please do not speak to me in that manner ("either you will provide some other reason(s) to support your claim of irrationality, or you will drop it"), unless you just wish to waste your virtual breath. I have no intention of doing anything that you ask me to, especially if you ask it in that manner, unless it agrees with what I think is the right thing to do. I have done many things for other Entmooters with whom I have "talked" to on the various threads, because we have treated each other with kindness and respect, and I like them. However, you have not earned any right to dictate to me. I will consider polite requests from you, though.

(4) Since you say that a 'legion of individuals' have made the same mistake, perhaps the 'mistake' is not on everyone else's side - perhaps you need to learn to express yourself a little more clearly.

(5) Yes, I am aware of the meaning of that term. However, I think what YOU thought was my "straw man" wasn't - again, shall we just drop this and start over?

(6) Uh, perhaps in YOUR humble opinion, but you certainly didn't answer to MY satisfaction, because you never addressed what I wanted you to. Again, I think it was a double misunderstanding -shall we just drop it and start over?

SO - all this aside, is there anything in particular that you would like to discuss with me? If so, could you please restate it so we can start again fresh

[Rían]

Originally posted by Coney
I asked this question in the original thread but recieved no reply *sob*

What do Christians believe happens to a non-Christian after they die?

Are we soul-less or are our souls cast into Limbo etc..

I am certainly no biblical scholar but I have read the King James version of the bible a couple of times and found no "real" answer

There are many devout Christians on the 'moot, any of you care to furnish this lil' Coney with an answer?

Footnote: Good on yer fer starting this thread Rian ......... I have many, varied, questions

Will you answer a quick question for me, Coney? Why did you pick "Coney" for a name? Just curious ....

OK, I'll try to express what I think the Bible says on this topic...

** looks back over thread to refresh her memory*

AAAAAHHHHHHH! God help me (and I mean that sincerely, as a prayer), while looking back over this thread I see so many misunderstandings here that I'm going to go nuts trying to deal with them all! (and I say that in grief - NOT from any feeling of superiority that I am more familiar with the Bible than some people - I certainly have NO reason to feel superior to ANYONE!)And from some of my favorite 'Mooters! I'll do what I can, though, because I think God is so wonderful and I want you people to come to know Him. I'm no 'official' Bible scholar, but I've been a Christian for almost 30 years, and I think that God has given me some insights into some areas, and I sure pray that they will make sense to you guys.

Coney - "Either spend your life in servitude to God or suffer eternally in the fiery pits of Hell" - AAAHHHH!! Servitude?? From Psalm 16:11 - "In Thy presence is fulness of joy"; from Revelation 21:4 - "and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain;". Just the first two that popped into my head, there's many more. Joy in the presence of God is a major theme in the Bible, IMO.

[BeardofPants]

i·de·ol·o·gy Audio pronunciation of Ideology ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-l-j, d-)
n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Ideology

n 1: an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory] 2: imaginary or visionary theorization


Belief = A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed.

A system of beliefs or Ideas. An Ideology.


meme Audio pronunciation of memes ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mm)
n.

A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

[Rían]

AAAAAAAHHHHHH (con't)

Eärniel - "The mere assumption that one who doesn't believe in a divine being can't be a good person makes my blood boil. It sets one person higher than another simply on a basis of what one believes."

I don't believe that the Bible says that anywhere. It DOES say that ALL of us do wrong. From Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Key word here is 'ALL'. It's NOT that "one who doesn't believe in a divine being can't be a good person", it's that ALL of us fall short of God's holy and perfect standard. We are all a mix of good and bad, and many of us sincerely try our best to be good, but all of us fall short.

BTW, I believe that people, in their limited wisdom and abilities, cannot even make correct judgements on how 'good' someone else is. Many people would look at me and think I'm pretty "good". However, they can't see into my heart and the times that I acted 'good' just for show, but was thinking awful things inside. Also, I think that, for example, God would be more pleased with someone that had a horrible upbringing and was brought up to lie, when they refrained from telling a lie one time out of 100, than with me not telling a lie, because I was brought up to believe that telling the truth is right, and it is habitual to me. Does that make sense? From I Samuel 16:7 - "For God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

And now it's too late, and I'm too tired, to address Coney's question coherently Sorry, Coney - please hang onto those clogs! I'll get to your question as soon as I can.

[Rían]

BoP - "memes"? That's a new one on me, and not in either of my 2 dictionaries It looks like a good word, though - I like it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

What I dislike most about many religions is that they seem to say there can only be one Truth. This is somewhat of a continuation of what I was saying in the first religion thread. . .

. . .It makes me sad to see how so many people think their Truth, and their way, is the only true way and everyone else is wrong. Is there not room for more than one absolute truth? I know that does not sound logical, but I think it makes sense, in some way. If I, for example, believed that when I die I will be reincarnated, and what I will be in my next life depends on my actions in this and past ones, then that is what would happen. Say I lived a righteous life according to my belief system, and I was something else in the next life after I died. Then someone else believes in the Christian god and that they will go to Heaven when they die, because they lived a righteous life and accepted god, and they died and went to heaven. There is more than one thing that could happen, depending on your beliefs. Does that make any sense?

Why can't we all get along? Why can't more than one religion live side by side without each one telling the other they are wrong? It's happened in the past. It's certainly possible, neh?

Also, one particuarly 'beautiful' idea is that gods, etc, only exist because people beleive in them. When no one believes in them, they cease to exist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I assume you mean that you believe that Gods only exist because people believe in them. *claps hands to save Tinkerbell* And also, if only people believing in a religion causes it to true, then how does the afterlife work? Life after death comes from a higher power; if powers and gods only exist through people's beliefs, then how can they grant life after death?

Anyway, I have seen a large number of inaccuracies concerning Christianty here, as well; but it's late, and I don't have time to address them; in fact, I can't think of any that haven't been addressed. Anyway, I'll just post a bit on the Christian view of life-after-death for now.

It is a straightforward choice, Will you choose God? There are only two answers; yes and no. Narrow is the gate, and straight is the path that leads to eternal life; yet broad is the way that leads to destruction; their is no mention of another way. And also, I hardly see the basis for your arguments. First of all, God is God; the Lord Almighty, Omnipotent Creator of All, the All-Father, if you will. Man is a mere creation of God. If a toymaker were to make, say, a doll or a puppet-boy, would the toys question their Maker? I mean no offense to anyone, but what right would the toys have to question the toymaker? God has given life to us all, directly or indirectly; are we then to show our thanks by questioning Him, hurling insults at Him, a being which we cannot hope to understand? As has been stated before, one does not have to spend their life as a missionary or anything of the sort to become a Christian; only believe with your heart, and confess with your mouth, and you will saved. It's not that terrible a thing to ask; and in return is eternal bliss, joy, and happiness (and it would hardly be that if it got boring, now would it?).

Hell was not created for Man; it was created for Satan and his angels. However, those who have not been washed in the Blood of the Lamb simply cannot exist in the most holy presence of the living God would, quite possibly. God would that none perish, but not all will accept his gift. Take soap, for example; there is soap out there to buy, but if you don't buy it and use it, you will begin to smell. Is this the fault of the soap, then?

Ok, that was a bit longer than I intended, but oh well.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I assume you mean that you believe that Gods only exist because people believe in them. *claps hands to save Tinkerbell* And also, if only people believing in a religion causes it to true, then how does the afterlife work? Life after death comes from a higher power; if powers and gods only exist through people's beliefs, then how can they grant life after death?

No, I do not believe that. It is merely an idea that I like, not that I believe in. I am an atheist; I do not believe that any god exists. However, I do not try to convice others of my beliefs. I think everyone has a right to believe what they will concerning the existance of god(s), but I do not think they ought to attempt to force their beliefs on others, or even tell others they are wrong. I do not appreciate being told I am going to hell because I do not believe in god. It doesn't bother me when people say that (did I just contradict myself?) but I think it's overstepping certain bounds to tell someone they are damned because they do not adhere to the same beliefs.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Well, that is what the Chiristian beliefs state; and we wouldn't be very good people (not saying we're better than everyone else, by any means) if, believing that those who did not believe in Christ (actually, if I'm correct Satanists believe in Christ, so I really mean accept him as their Saviour) went to hell, if we didn't try to warn them?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Well, that is what the Chiristian beliefs state; and we wouldn't be very good people (not saying we're better than everyone else, by any means) if, believing that those who did not believe in Christ (actually, if I'm correct Satanists believe in Christ, so I really mean accept him as their Saviour) went to hell, if we didn't try to warn them?

But why can they not go to the afterlife prescribed by their religion, as I described in my previous post? I suppose I would appreciate people being kind enough to 'warn' me of such a fate, but they are then saying that theirs is the only truth, when it would be possible to say that there is more than one truth, neh?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not according to the Christian faith, it wouldn't. And, I was referring to in consideration of our beliefs, which do not say that the person who believes in something other than Christianity goes to whatever afterlife he believes in.

According to Christianity, there is only one way to escape Hell; through Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Anyway, when you really get down to it, no actual religion really believes that you go to whatever afterlife you believe in; some people do, but not really what I would call a religion, as it is merely an anything-goes belief, rather than a certain belief. Anyway, why are you advocating something you yourself don't believe in?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
BoP - "memes"? That's a new one on me, and not in either of my 2 dictionaries It looks like a good word, though - I like it.

Yeah, they work similar to DNA. Here's a link:

http://www.memecentral.com/

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Anyway, when you really get down to it, no actual religion really believes that you go to whatever afterlife you believe in; some people do, but not really what I would call a religion, as it is merely an anything-goes belief, rather than a certain belief. Anyway, why are you advocating something you yourself don't believe in?

I guess it all goes back to that thing about exclusionary religions again. . .and religion is hardly something I am an expert on!

Anyway, I never said there is a religion that believes that, I was simply wondering why there has to be this insistance that one way is right and everyone else is wrong. Although, can you actually say for sure that there is no religion that says that?

As to why I am saying this when I am an atheist anyway. . .well, I have considered a few different 'options' in my rather short lifetime so far, and none of them have ever actually made sense in the end. I was raised Jewish, but at a certain point, I began to question the existance of god, and from there I considered a few other belief systems. I think the closest I have come to something I like is Buddhism. But that is not answering your question, neh? I am advocating the possibility of there being more than one truth because I dislike the exclusionary nature of many religions today. I may not believe in any sort of higher being, but I am very interested in religion. . .or at least in comparing the many different ones.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
Anduril -
OK, I'm ready to wade in a bit more, but first I wish to inform you that I intend to "play" by my own rules, and not any that you try to put on me, because you have no jurisdiction over me.

Fair enough. Hopefully our "rules" are similar enough to avoid further misunderstanding and to maintain a good, flowing discussion.

More:
My intent on this thread is to engage in some intelligent and polite discussion with the goal of greater understanding on both sides, and I am willing to spend some of my precious free time to achieve that goal, because I believe that people are incredibly valuable beings created by God and worthy of great respect.

And my intent, though not based on the same reasoning, is quite similar.

More:
I am NOT willing to engage in debate for the sake of debate, because I think that that is a waste of my time, and I have absolutely NO interest in debate for debate's sake.

Although there are benefits to be derived from the activity you mention, I'll try it keep the nature of my debate tendencies "outcomes-based".

More:
I see you like debating, however (I checked your member profile a few days ago to see if I could find out if you were American, because I could hardly believe how much trouble we were having trying to communicate ). I found out that under "interests", you listed "online debate" and "porn".

My profile is in need of updating. As a result of a hectic study schedule, most of the time that would previously have been spent in online discussions is now spent with my nose in books.

More:
Re the second - well, I'll certainly know how to pray for you - I will pray that your eyes will be opened to see (1) what a horrible and destructive thing porn is, to EVERYONE involved; and (2) what a beautiful, wonderful, fun thing sex is in the context of a committed marriage.

Thanks.

More:
Re the first - you've already used some debate terminology in our discussion.

*snip*

would you please back off on the debate terminology?

I don't think this will be possible. I have been using such terminology for a few years now, and I have just finished one of my undergraduate courses that concentrates heavily on it. To be fair, I will give a short explanation on its usage where additional terminology appears, and elaborate further if necessary.

More:
You may, of course, use multisyllabic words - I'm not stupid, just not trained in debate.

*snip*

Yay!

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Eärniel - "The mere assumption that one who doesn't believe in a divine being can't be a good person makes my blood boil. It sets one person higher than another simply on a basis of what one believes."

I don't believe that the Bible says that anywhere. It DOES say that ALL of us do wrong. From Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Key word here is 'ALL'. It's NOT that "one who doesn't believe in a divine being can't be a good person", it's that ALL of us fall short of God's holy and perfect standard. We are all a mix of good and bad, and many of us sincerely try our best to be good, but all of us fall short.

That's my point. I said later on in my post that I think it's a very unchristian thing to believe. But it is a assumption that many believers seem to have, regardless of their religion. If atheists and agnostics have many misconceptions about faith I believe some believers even have more.

Originally posted by Finmandos12
If you don't think that you get to heaven by trusting Christ, how do you think that you get to heaven? Being good? Hoping the good deeds outweigh the bad?

Isn't that the point? If we are to atone for our sins isn't the best way to do it to do good? But you should do good with[OUT] constantly keeping a score. Or is sinning and going to confess in church every week so much better?

[Edited due to very stupid typo]

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
(1) - Y'know, I think we can retire this part of the discussion because I think we're talking about two different aspects of your statement. What I was responding to was the word "belief" when you said "Atheism is not a belief system". I've spent a lot of time on other threads discussing "belief" vs. "knowledge", esp. scientific knowledge. What I was thinking was saying, in a humorous way, "What, is it a knowledge system?";

Forgive me - I can be quite hasty at times, and I should have read the question that followed to obtain a clearer idea of the point you were trying to make.

More:
my point being that a person cannot KNOW that there is no God.

I disagree. It depends on the definition of "God".

More:
I did not misrepresent your position, I think that there was just a misunderstanding on both sides.

Indeed you have not, and I apologize for falsely accusing you. But there is another issue here that will be brought up before long.

More:
Now your objection seems to be whether or not atheism is a belief system. Shall we save time and just retire this point and just start discussing the belief system aspect of things?

Sure.