Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lizra
In reply to Rian....
Yes! Don't you just LOVE IT when people actually ask what they want to know, or respond to a question with a direct answer!

Yes!!! That's certainly the way I like to talk, and I think it's the best way for everyone involved, especially when serious topics are being discussed.

Certain people I know (not on Entmoot ) have a really difficult way of communicating things they want by 'hinting', and not asking directly - if you guess wrong, then they get upset at you for not knowing what they were thinking, and if you don't respond because it's not an outright request, they get upset because they think you're ignoring them! Really a lose-lose for everyone.

What I've come up with is to just come right out and say "Would you like me to do so-and-so? I'd be glad to", and then if they dither and say "well, I don't know, I don't really need it, but if YOU want to then go ahead", then I say "well, I don't particularly want to, but please let me know if you do, because I'd be glad to do it for you." Also I've talked to them just straight out at other times and said "I know you guys know each other really well and what you all like, but I need a little help - could you please just let me know straight out if you would like something, because it's hard for me to guess, and I certainly want to do things for you, but I can't if I don't know what they are."

[/end digression on communication]

[Rían]

Any thoughts from other people on the thread about any of these issues? This is open to anyone

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Not a "thought" (goodness me, it's been so long! ), but a question:

Out of curiousity, Rian, what's next on your list of questions?

[Rían]

*gets out long list of notes from this thread*

*copies will be made available for a small fee *

*except no one but me would be able to read it, because it's such sloppy handwriting!*

Well, I wanted to start out with a closing statement on strong/weak omnipotence, then I was going to address something Coney brought up on both this thread and the homosexuality thread re: the "really, really bad" person that becomes a Christian (but just in terms of 'saving' him/herself, not true repentence and belief). But I think I might shelf the omni stuff for now and deal with the Genesis thing to a certain extent, because someone else asked about it, too, and actually someone else via PM has asked me a similar question. And I might try to deal with the really, really bad person thing at the same time; I don't know yet...


Also, I've been thinking about bringing up something that is related to the speed (or lack thereof ) with which I answer people's questions, and I've decided to go ahead and mention it.

I typically say at the beginning of a thread that if people are looking for answers from me, specifically, that they will probably have to be patient, because I can't answer as fast as I would like to, due to having 3 small kids, which takes up a lot of time. It certainly does, but there is another factor involved which I haven't mentioned until now. God has seen fit, in his infinite wisdom and love, to allow me to have a chronic illness that puts me in varying degrees of fatigue and pain throughout the day. It's not contagious or lethal, it just gives me varying levels of daily fatigue and pain. I usually have to get up at night at least several times a month to lie down on a hard floor, because the counterpressure from the floor helps to take away some of the pain. I look very normal, and I'm used to getting around with fatigue and pain, and it's by no means always really bad - however, it is present daily and it does force me to rest more than I would like to. So that's just another reason why my outgoing posts often don't come as fast as the incoming questions I'm not asking for pity or anything, I just want to explain that because I love God and care a lot for people, I REALLY want to answer people's questions as best as I can, but I absolutely cannot get to them as fast as I would like to. But I DO want to get to them, and that's why I took the trouble and time to go thru the entire thread and jot down notes and put little stars by people's posts, etc. And if I forget anyone's questions, and they would like to specifically hear from me, then PLEASE don't hesitate to remind me - I would really appreciate it. And, BTW, I can see many good things that God has taught me through having this illness that I otherwise wouldn't have learned very well, such as patience in trials, compassion for hurting people, trust in God's power to fill in where I am weak, etc. A physical illness like this is a hard teacher, but we often learn the best from our hardest teachers, and I know that the One who assigns the teachers is loving and wise (although I DO NOT like this teacher!! but I love and trust God)

Anyway, that's kind of where I was heading on this thread in terms of questions, Gwaimir.

[Rían]

I have to go pick up the kids now, but I should be able to get in one of my typical 'long-winded' opening posts on the Genesis subject in a few hours.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'm very, very sorry to hear that, Rian. I will pray about your health problem. But let me say that I don't believe that God gave you sickness. I believe that illness, pain, infirmity, and everything like that comes from Satan, not God. But whatsoever that Satan intends for Evil, God can use for Good, especially teaching us lessons like that. But let me say again that I will pray for you.

[Rían]

Oh, I completely agree with you, Gwaimir, that God did not give me this sickness, and that's why I said "allow", not "give". Cf. Paul's illness mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. In IOW, Satan may give us illnesses, etc., but only as far as God allows it, because He can work something in our character, that makes us more Christlike, that is a FAR GREATER GOOD than the sickness or whatever is bad.

And thanks for your prayers - isn't it great that we can uphold each other in prayer w/o even having met face-to-face!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Baby-K
IMO Andúril's question seemed rather important (bar the obvious conflict between you guys) - it emphasises a valid point to me, i.e. it is often said that the bible is a contradiction in terms of the written word & the interpretation thereof.

Christians would immediately attempt to explain the interpretation of the command as a test of loyalty (a test that Abraham passed). However, the question still remains, why God would instruct Abraham to sacrifice his son? Keeping in mind that the question was posed directly as result of a post by you that God would never do such a thing?

Let's start by discussing the question from your post - "why God would instruct Abraham to sacrifice his son" - is that OK? Then we can talk about supposed contradictions in general later on, if you would like to (probably some time next year, at the rate I deal with things! )

Just to clear up a minor point, in case you missed it in my earlier post, I stand by what I said on the voices thread, that God would never tell her to do anything harmful to herself or others. I believe that to be true. Please note that I was talking directly to the thread starter. I was NOT making a statement to defend at a formal debate or saying that it applied to everyone.

by RÃ*an, talking to elvishfaerie on the Voices thread:
Pray to God for help, but because you're hearing voices and it could be confusing, I will tell you that God will NEVER, NEVER tell you to do anything destructive to yourself or others. If you hear something like, this, then it is not from God - DON'T DO IT!"

Does that clear that point up?

Now I will make a formal statement that I believe to be true for people today:

I will tell you that God will NEVER, NEVER tell you to do anything destructive to yourself or others. If you hear something like, this, then it is not from God - DON'T DO IT!"

Please note that it is exactly the same! (I just couldn't resist! ) However, since I think defending this statement in the general sense will turn on rather fine points of the definition of 'destructive', I don't wish to talk about it now; it will have to sink to the bottom of my question queue. I would like to talk about Abraham, though, and how the concept of God not telling people to do anything destructive is compatable with what goes on in that particular story, since that was your specific question. Also, by the time we're done, I think that the question in the general sense will be answered, too, BTW.

I'd like to start by quoting three passages from C. S. Lewis that I think are absolutely critical in understanding what is going on in this particular story of Abraham:

from The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis
Christianity is not the conclusion of a philosophical debate ... it is a catastrophic historical event following on the long spiritual preparation of humanity which I have described.

from Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
Notice, too, their idea of God "making religion simple": as if "religion" were something God invented, and not His statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature.

from Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis
And what did God do? First of all He left us conscience, the sense of right and wrong: and all through history there have been people trying (some of them very hard) to obey it. None of them ever quite succeeded. Secondly, He sent the human race what I call good dreams: I mean those queer stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again and, by his death, has somehow given new life to men. Thirdly, He selected one particular people and spent several centuries hammering into their heads the sort of God He was - that there was only one of Him and that He cared about right conduct. Those people were the Jews, and the Old Testament gives an account of the hammering process.

Your thoughts? (open to all )

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril
Yes, I know you care for me very much. Your email shows how much you care. Once again, thanks.

OK, just because I can be dense, and I want to be absolutely sure about this - do you believe that I wrote what I did because I care about your welfare and I am concerned for you? Yes or no. (to follow your example of yes or no questions )

----------------------------------------------------------------------

And just a quick answer to one of your questions - Re Genesis 22:1, do you mean answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question "do I believe that this statement is true?" If so, then I would answer 'yes'. Please let me know if that is NOT what you mean.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
do you believe that I wrote what I did because I care about your welfare and I am concerned for you? Yes or no.

Yes.

More:
And just a quick answer to one of your questions - Re Genesis 22:1, do you mean answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question "do I believe that this statement is true?" If so, then I would answer 'yes'. Please let me know if that is NOT what you mean.

That is what I meant. Thanks.

[markedel]

I posted an excellent interpertation on the Akedah issue on the homosexuality thread (no I didn't make it up ). It's long, and the textual proofs are not the simplest (and I don't have a tanach next to me, so I can't provide the textual proofs verbatim) but...

The goal of God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is for Abraham to acknowledge an aspect of God he was as uncomfortable with as legitimate and necessary. Abraham is a loving, caring merciful person, but God is not into loving and caring-at least not without order and law. That's what creates justice-laws tempered with a trully caring morality. Abraham had 2 sons-Ishmael had the more caring loving side (just like his father), which when taken to extremes leads to some bad stuff (in Judaism the extremes of "loving-kindness" is called Satan, though its implications are not idenitcal). Isaac had the law side of things-note the text right Abraham really likes Ishmael. But God, being God, (or not according to some) knows Isaac must carry on Abraham's legacy-Ishmael leans a little to close to "Satan." God orders Abraham to kill Isaac, which Abraham does willingly-each side wants to eliminate the other. God wants them to reach a balance. Abraham learns this balance on the way to the mountain, he now appreciates law-but cannot disobey God, because he is Abraham, in fact even after God stopped him from killing him he still wanted to cut, out of fear that he wouldn't fufill his duty. In the end Abraham passes the test-he accepts both parts of God's character as legitimate and necessary, and Isaac as his proper heir.

[Finmandos12]

The goal of God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac is for Abraham to acknowledge an aspect of God he was as uncomfortable with as legitimate and necessary. Abraham is a loving, caring merciful person, but God is not into loving and caring-at least not without order and law. That's what creates justice-laws tempered with a trully caring morality. Abraham had 2 sons-Ishmael had the more caring loving side (just like his father), which when taken to extremes leads to some bad stuff (in Judaism the extremes of "loving-kindness" is called Satan, though its implications are not idenitcal). Isaac had the law side of things-note the text right Abraham really likes Ishmael. But God, being God, (or not according to some) knows Isaac must carry on Abraham's legacy-Ishmael leans a little to close to "Satan." God orders Abraham to kill Isaac, which Abraham does willingly-each side wants to eliminate the other. God wants them to reach a balance. Abraham learns this balance on the way to the mountain, he now appreciates law-but cannot disobey God, because he is Abraham, in fact even after God stopped him from killing him he still wanted to cut, out of fear that he wouldn't fufill his duty. In the end Abraham passes the test-he accepts both parts of God's character as legitimate and necessary, and Isaac as his proper heir.

Thats an interesting interpretation...

Just as a sidenote, the only attribute of God ever repeated three times in the Bible is "holy". In the Bible, it never says God is "loving, loving, loving" or "faithful, faithful, faithful", but "holy, holy holy"

[Wayfarer]

God is not into loving and caring-at least not without order and law. That's what creates justice-laws tempered with a trully caring morality.

Order and law are part of love. Contrary to what you might think, love in it's truest form is not passive, but an active force; love is the reason behind the law, because without law there is (personal) anarchy, and anarchy is harmful-which isn't what love wants for it's object.

[Nat]

I have a question.
What is your view on Joseph Smith??

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Order and law are part of love. Contrary to what you might think, love in it's truest form is not passive, but an active force; love is the reason behind the law, because without law there is (personal) anarchy, and anarchy is harmful-which isn't what love wants for it's object.

Amen to that.

While this is not exactly along the thread of this conversation, it does have to do with religion, and is an offshoot of a comment in the new quote thread started by Afro-Elf. Someone said that they liked a particular quote because no one s/he knew in a religion could get around the logic of it. To me, at least, not everything is logical, least of all beliefs, whether they are theistic or not.

[Rían]

Originally posted by markedel
I posted an excellent interpertation on the Akedah issue on the homosexuality thread (no I didn't make it up ). It's long, and the textual proofs are not the simplest (and I don't have a tanach next to me, so I can't provide the textual proofs verbatim) but...

I did a search and couldn't find it on the homosexuality thread, but I remembered one that you did here - is that the one you meant? Actually 2 posts - number 1 and number 2


I really enjoy hearing your POV, markedel, because I don't know any rabbis that I can talk to. I've never heard what you said before about that passage, and I'm glad you brought it up. Now my POV on that passage, as a Christian, will be a little different from yours, but I'm going to wait until Monday to get into it, since I like to honor the 4th commandment, and although posting here is very enjoyable and interesting, it IS work!

BTW, I would be really honored if your rabbi would look at the posts that I did on Christianity and the law. If you wouldn't mind, would you ask him, with my respects, for his opinion on what I wrote? Here's a link to the posts that I mean: markedel's post, my post #1, and my post #2
And tell him please that it is from someone who knows and loves the Shema: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might."


PS - Hi, Starr - welcome back

[Rían]

Originally posted by Andúril

Yes.

I'm SO glad I asked you that, Andúril, because I really thought that you were being sarcastic in your earlier post *wags finger in playful scolding manner* - you know, young man, you ARE sarcastic quite often

I'm so sorry I misinterpreted you, and very glad that you set me straight. Thank you

[Rían]

Just some comments on one of your posts in answer to my PM, Andúril, then the rest will have to wait until Monday.

Originally posted by Andúril
Deadly" was meant in the context of debate/discourse.

Yes, I do realize that YOU meant it that way, but that statement really hit me because I think it is also true in several other contexts that you're not even aware of - mainly, that separation from God is death, and you're an atheist trying to (from what I understand - correct me if I'm wrong) convince people that Christianity is not true, thus keeping people separated from God and remaining in death. Now God WILL save whoever He has called - you can't stop Him - but you CAN hurt people (but again, God will use any hurt for their greater good). But these are VERY complex subjects that I don't really want to get into at this point, because I'd rather finish Abraham first!

God has boots?

I'll ask Him when I get to heaven

Firstly, just because someone appears on a discussion board to be "terribly frightened" and "crying out for help" does not suggest necessarily that the situation is true. RÃ*an admits that she has "seen hoaxes like this". She also admits that there might be a human life involved.

OF COURSE it might be a hoax - my whole point is, why take ANY chance of making things worse, BECAUSE "might" goes 2 ways - it might be REAL!!!! A human life is not worth that risk. And even if it IS a hoax, the person is clearly not thinking well to even try a hoax like that.

Secondly, RÃ*an commits the fallacy of argumentum ad numerum by appealing to the amount of people who offered their advice in the thread, as if that was an indication of the "correct" thing to do, or appropriate behaviour in the situation.

RÃ*an commits NO error here - RÃ*an was NOT debating - RÃ*an realizes that Andúril has some problems that are hurtful to him and to others, and he doesn't seem to think that they even ARE problems, and that he has indicated that he will not consider the Bible as an authority to him, so RÃ*an decided to try to help Andúril see that perhaps there IS a problem with his behavior by showing that his behavior was different from the behavior of the majority of other posters. And now RÃ*an is tired of speaking in the third person, so she will change back to first person and say - I think that in order for a person to realize they need help, they first need to realize that there is a problem.

Thirdly, my first post in the thread was not intended to be advice.

Yes, I realize that - but don't you think it would have been kinder to either refrain from posting, or to offer sympathy, or to offer advice, even though it may be a hoax? IMO, kinder is better - is that your opinion, too?

[markedel]

"Order and law are part of love. Contrary to what you might think, love in it's truest form is not passive, but an active force; love is the reason behind the law, because without law there is (personal) anarchy, and anarchy is harmful-which isn't what love wants for it's object."

Of course the extreme of law is called "Amalek" in Jewish theology-and Jews are commanded to eliminate such ideas.

[Andúril]

RÃ*an:
Yes, I do realize that YOU meant it that way,

Problem solved.

More:
but that statement really hit me because I think it is also true in several other contexts that you're not even aware of - mainly, that separation from God is death,

You mentioned that instead of being "deadly" you would rather be a "life-giving". If you were aware of the context of the word, how could you possibly think that the opposite of being "deadly" would be "life-giving"? How can one be "life-giving" in debate/discourse?

Are you sure that I am not aware that separation from God is death? How do you know this?

More:
and you're an atheist trying to (from what I understand - correct me if I'm wrong) convince people that Christianity is not true

I used to argue against Christianity in the past. I have chosen not to do so for now, since that mindset might interfere negatively with my studies.

However, which post(s) of mine led you to that conclusion?

More:
*snip*

Now God WILL save whoever He has called

In youir words, what does it mean to be called? Can those people decide against being saved?

More:
and you're an atheist trying to (from what I understand - correct me if I'm wrong) convince people that Christianity is not true, thus keeping people separated from God and remaining in death.

Interesting. I'll let you answer the above question first before commenting on this.

More:
But these are VERY complex subjects that I don't really want to get into at this point, because I'd rather finish Abraham first!

Fine. I had a question or two, but I'll leave them for now.

More:
*snip*

RÃ*an commits NO error here - RÃ*an was NOT debating

The argumentum ad numerum fallacy is not a "debating error", it is an error of rational thinking or critical reasoning. It is illogical.

More:
RÃ*an realizes that Andúril has some problems that are hurtful to him and to others

And these problems are? LOL!

More:
*snip*

so RÃ*an decided to try to help Andúril see that perhaps there IS a problem with his behavior by showing that his behavior was different from the behavior of the majority of other posters

Argumentum ad numerum. Were the majority of posters skeptical of her claims? No. Problem solved.

More:
*snip*

I think that in order for a person to realize they need help, they first need to realize that there is a problem.

I agree.

More:
Yes, I realize that - but don't you think it would have been kinder to either refrain from posting, or to offer sympathy, or to offer advice, even though it may be a hoax?

Are you saying that in light of my strong skepticism in this matter, I should contradict my position by pretending that I believe her case is probably real, and therefore offer sympathy or advice? ROFTL!

More:
IMO, kinder is better - is that your opinion, too?

No.