Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

And of course the books are filled with "He's not a tame lion, you know!"


I'm sorry, markedel, but I can't think of where Gandalf says that - could you remind me? I'm curious...

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Rian! That rather surprised me, though I would agree with you.

Yeah, I thought I was probably coming off as "cool and collected" and dispassionate about things, which I'm NOT, so I wanted to make sure that I made clear that I also have a very strong sense of justice, and I hate to see people get hurt, and I get angry at those that hurt them. However, I also feel sorry for the hurters, because they must be really messed up to want to hurt someone else. But that doesn't excuse their actions, by any means, and there should be consequences. I can take a few insults myself and not worry about it, but when I hear insults about those I love, I really get upset about it.

Honestly, I really don't know what to think about physically fighting in a case like the one Coney mentioned, though - what I definitely admire is his standing up for his friend. In the last few years, I've changed my mind from thinking that physically fighting is ALWAYS wrong to thinking that perhaps physically fighting is not always wrong in a case like that (as long as you don't really beat on someone once they're down), but I really don't know....Life isn't filled with easy decisions, is it?! I wish it were.... My husband got in 2 fights when he was young, and both times it was defending someone else..... But this is just thinking out loud....it might be interesting to start a thread on it, though!

This typing business is really irksome, isn't it! But if it's all ya got, that's what ya gotta go with...

And please remember that the RÃ*an that posts here in a very serious and long-winded manner is the same person that composed "Baloney and Luncheon", a take-off on Tolkien's beautiful and tragic story about Beren and Luthien, from his poem "The Lay Of Leithian"

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
And please remember that the RÃ*an that posts here in a very serious and long-winded manner is the same person that composed "Baloney and Luncheon", a take-off on Tolkien's beautiful and tragic story about Beren and Luthien, from his poem "The Lay Of Leithian"

*nearly dies again when laughing too hard at the memory of the rather memorable poem*

It still cracks me up every time, just THINKING about it.

If it helps RÃ*an, I have yet to read a cold post coming from you.

[markedel]

Ah luncheon...

The quote I mention is when Gandalf returns-it is said to Gimli in Fangorn.

So ah what controversial religious topic would you like to tackle next.



I have some interesting (but not for the faint hearted) texts on abortion and Jewish tradition. Interesting in this context mostly because of the contrast between Judaism and Christianity. I can pull them out if you like. They are a little graphic however.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Might this thread be what you wanted, Rian?

Well, I definitely do not believe that violence is always wrong. Of course, sadism, just beating people up, and all that I would definitely say is wrong. But under the right circumstances, especially defending someone else or your home, I definitely don't think it's wrong. I feel I must quote the Quaker whose house was broken into by a burglar...

I would not hurt thee for the world, friend, but thou art standing where my shotgun is pointed.

[Coney]

Nice quote!

*off to have a look at the thread Gwaimir found*

[Rían]

Eärniel - Thanks very much, it DOES help And that thread was just WAAAY too funny, wasn't it?! GO TUOR! He's the MAN! Woo-hoo!

markedel - oh that's right, I forgot about that - that's a great quote! "And you're dangerous yourself, Gimli, in your own way", or something like that. Oh, BTW (hint, hint ) did you see my post a page or so back about asking your rabbi about my Christianity/law posts?
And about tackling another subject - actually, for me personally, I'm still in the middle of 2 biggies - Abraham/Isaac and scum-of-the-earth people getting saved - so I'm not quite up to a new topic yet. I quite understand your thinking I was done, though - I've been a bit slower than usual lately I'd be interested in seeing your quotes, though - maybe start another thread, or just wait a bit longer until posting them on this thread, or post here but know that I won't be dealing with them much but others might, I don't know.... whatever you think is best.

Gwaimir - That's a GREAT quote!! That just made my day! Some of those Quakers were great people, weren't they! And they really stood up for their beliefs.
I saw the thread you mentioned, but didn't read it beyond the first few posts. Did they get into fighting much, or was it mostly war/killing? Fighting is not really a topic I'm familiar with, not having any brothers. But I did rescue my little sister once from two mean girls who were whacking her with their purses! But I didn't hit them with MY purse (I didn't have one ), I just pulled her away from them and helped her run away. Funny, I can still picture that scene...

[Finmandos12]

I challenge you to show where I, personally have said that a non-believer can live a perfectly just life and still go to hell. Since I absolutely do NOT believe that, I doubt that I have said that anywhere. I doubt if any of the other Christians here have said that, either.

I'll say it: no one can live a perfect life and get to heaven on their own merits. No matter how perfect someone may appear to you, they have sinned. To get into heaven, God does not grade you on a curve. (Oh, you're better than the guy before you, so I'll let you in) You must be absolutely perfect to get to heaven. Since no one can do this on their own, you must trust Jesus to get to heaven. I'l try to elaborate on this if you have any thoughts, and I'm sure Rian will be glad to help as well.

[Hasty Ent]

Rian,
Please don't be offended, I never meant you specifically. I really enjoy your posts, and always find them thoughtful and interesting.

Rian wrote:
uh, NOPE! Absolutely NOT! Please stay tuned, and I'll get into more detail later on for anyone that's interested. (at least I challenge you to show where I, personally have said that a non-believer can live a perfectly just life and still go to hell. Since I absolutely do NOT believe that, I doubt that I have said that anywhere. I doubt if any of the other Christians here have said that, either. Can you refer back to any specific posts?)

here's my original post on Ghandi from page 4:

Originally posted by Hasty Ent
Mahatma Gandhi said: "There is nothing in the world that would keep me from professing Christianity or any other faith, the moment I felt the truth of and the need for it. Where there is fear, there is no religion...If I could call myself, say, a Christian, or a Mussalman, with my own interpretation of the bible or the Koran, I should not hesitate to call myself either. For then Hihdu, Christian and Mussalman would be synonymous terms. I do believe that in the other world there are neither Hindus, nor Christians nor Mussalmans. There all are judged not according to their labels, or professions, but according to their actions, irrespective of their professions. During our earthly existence there will always be these labels. I, therefore, prefer to retain the label of my forefathers so long as it does not cramp my growth and does not debar me from assimilating all that is good anywhere else."

Now, since it appears that he didn't believe in the Christian god exclusively, should one assume that he is now in hell?

and here's a reply from Gwaimir Windgem on page 5
While I mean no disrespect to Gandhi, in this quote he says that if he can interpret the Bible to mean what he wants it to be, then he is a Christian; he also says that they are the same in this case, which of course they are not. Therefore, it would seem that he does not really believe in the Christian faith; he may believe that there are good parts of it, but he does not believe in the faith.

here's an excerpt from one of your posts on page 5:
To a non-Christian, it would be a place of horror - they have chosen to defy God, deny His Existence, declare that they themselves are god. In the end, the Bible says that EVERY knee shall bow and EVERY tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. The Christians will do it joyfully and gratefully; the non-Christians I think will do it in anger and defiance; they will not even want to be there.

Now, I never got a 'yes, Ghandi is in hell' or a 'no, Ghandi is not in hell' answer. I'd like one, but have given up waiting. Based on the posts in this thread it would appear that 1) Ghandi is not a Christian, because he doesn't believe exclusively in the Christian god and 2) only Christians who have accepted Jesus as their saviour are in heaven. Therefore, Ghandi is not heaven, so he must be in hell.

If I have misrepresented anyone's comments, I apologize. I don't post on this thread too often since the other mooters are much better informed on the details. However, I do read this thread religiously!

[Finmandos12]

However, I do read this thread religiously!

No pun intended, I'm sure.

Based on the posts in this thread it would appear that 1) Ghandi is not a Christian, because he doesn't believe exclusively in the Christian god and 2) only Christians who have accepted Jesus as their saviour are in heaven. Therefore, Ghandi is not heaven, so he must be in hell.

That is correct. It is extremely sad that anyone gets sent to hell, and it often seems unfair. However, it really is fair. God would not be a just God if he let people in who had not confessed their sins and accepted Jesus as their saviour. The reason many will not do that is that humans are naturally prideful. We would rather be able to say "I did it! I was good enough to get into heaven on my own!" than recognize their sinfulness.

[Rían]

Hi Hasty Ent -

Don't worry, I'm not at ALL offended by sincere questions, and I try to do my best to answer to the best of my understanding. I thought that I did indeed answer your question, because I remember it, but I guess it wasn't answered to your satisfaction. Thanks for reminding me - there's so many questions floating around here that I often forget them, and if I don't hear back from someone, I assume it was answered to their satisfaction.

I see 2 points in your post, as far as I can tell - correct me if I'm missing something.

point 1 - since you quoted where I said "at least I challenge you to show where I, personally have said that a non-believer can live a perfectly just life and still go to hell.", and then quoted something I said awhile back, it looks like you're trying to say that I did INDEED say that a non-believer can live a perfectly just life and still go to hell; is that what you're trying to say? I would have to disagree with you.

I believe that Gandhi did NOT live a PERFECTLY just life! The Bible states clearly that NO ONE (except Jesus ) can live a sinless life, so Gandhi would fall in that category. In fact, if you were to be able to ask Gandhi if he was completely sinless, I think that he would probably either (1) agree that he has sinned at least once in his life, or (2) say something along the lines that sin is an illusion, as some eastern religions believe (and to that, I would say just ask the victims of a sin such as rape or torture if it was an illusion). So you may think that Gandhi is perfectly just, but I disagree.

point 2 - whether or not Gandhi is in hell - I can certainly tell you that I cannot make that final decision. All I can say with confidence is that the ONLY way of salvation is through Jesus. I'm don't know enough to say whether or not Gandhi made that decision or not; neither do you. I imagine just Gandhi and God know. If he did NOT, then yes, by his own free choice, he is in hell (the Bible says that all men are without excuse, for God reveals Himself to them in various ways, and God is just and fair). However, he may well have chosen to accept God's way of salvation; I just don't know.

Do you remember my post on Abraham, and how he was declared by God to be saved, but he lived before Jesus - how could this be? In some mysterious way that we can't understand, he was saved thru faith also, and thru Jesus, the ONLY way. Now this is by NO means a blanket statement saying that anyone that believes in any God is saved! But I think it is just a little hint for us that indicates God's fairness, because (1) Abraham WAS saved, and (2) Abraham had never heard of Jesus! But this is a difficult subject, because there is so little written about it in Scripture, and I hesitate to speculate anymore. But overall, (1) God is just, and (2) Salvation is ONLY through Jesus, and (3) no one has an excuse for rejecting God, because God says that He is revealed to EVERYONE in such a way as to make their decision an informed one. Does that make sense?

BTW, here's another quote from Gandhi - "For it is an unbroken torture to me that I am still so far from Him, who, as I fully know, governs every breath of my life, and whose offspring I am." (from a 1948 biography, Mahatma Gandhi, Washington DC Public affairs press). It looks like there is a seeking of God present in Him, and God says whoever seeks Him will find Him.

Did that answer all your questions?


.. refpost

[Amandil]

Thanks for the Aslan quote, Rian!

Love,

[Rían]

You're welcome, Amandil! Great quote, IMO.

[Finmandos12]

Hmm, now I need to say something very controversial to get the discussion revived.....

[Rían]

I'll go ahead and start up the scum-of-the-earth salvation discussion...

Several people at Entmoot have told me I'm nice. Perhaps they even think I should get into heaven based on my being nice. However, you people can't see into my heart. Perhaps I'm only pretending to be nice so I can set you all up and then turn around and be mean and REALLY GET YOU! Or worse, I can continue to pretend to be nice, but start slipping in little misleading and incorrect statements to really mess with your mind and get you to think wrong things about what Christianity says. You all pretty much trust what I say the Bible says, right? How many of you look up the verses that I quote to see if I quoted them right? MWAHAHA!

OK, I"m JUST KIDDING! I really have no other motive here than: I love God and I love the people He created. *hopes fervently that they believe that, after reading the paragraph above!* But my point is - people CANNOT see into other people's hearts! And "niceness" is NOT as simple as some people think! Now look at me - I come from a stable family - no divorces on either side up my family tree - church-going family on both sides - stable financially, health-wise, emotionally, etc. My goodness, what is my excuse for NOT being nice?!?! But people look at me and say "gee, she's really nice, I think nice people like her should be allowed into heaven".

Now look at another person - I don't personally know anyone like this, but there are obviously many people like this - a person who is brought into an unstable home, whose father abandoned her, whose mother is a drug addict with a boyfriend that abuses both the mother and the daughter - with not enough money for food or shelter - who is taught that she must lie, cheat and steal to survive. Now this person will not look "good" to observers. If she becomes a Christian and her physical circumstances improve and she and I end up at the same church, people will look at me (dress modestly, clean language, doesn't lie, participates in outreach programs to the community) and then look at her (indecent clothes, foul language, lies consistently, doesn't try to help anyone outside herself) and say that I am better than she is. But I truly believe that God is more pleased with her, if she only REFRAINS from lying one time in a hundred in one day, while lying the other 99 times, than with me telling only the truth all the time 100 days in a row! Do you see what I mean? God sees our hearts, and knows where we've came from, and what difficulties we have to deal with. And THAT is why we are told not to judge, IMO! We can't see the whole story; only God can.

So one angle on the scummy person thing is that you really have no idea what is going on in their hearts, and everything that has happened to them, and what kind of difficulties they are fighting against that make right behavior very difficult. Now that does NOT excuse their actions, and they need to pay the consequences, but if you think about it, it removes some of the justice objections about whether or not they should be offered salvation, doesn't it?

Bible verse on this subject - (can you trust me, or is anyone going to look it up and check me ? BTW, I usually work out of the New American Standard version)
First Samuel 16:7 : "....for God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."

Thoughts, anyone?

[Finmandos12]

No comments? I'm someone must have something to say.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Finmandos12
No comments? I'm someone must have something to say.

Yup, but it'll have to wait until tommorrow....it's 3am here

[Rían]

But Coney, you're such a night-owl rabbit, you should be rarin' to go

Just kidding - get some sleep! See ya tomorrow.

[Amandil]

Has much been made of the "if you don't want to hang out with God, then you don't have to" argument for heaven/hell? (I sure the hell am not going to read the entire thread to find out.) I think it's an idea that bears bearing out. Let me (against my better judgement) explain:

All you nontheists, I presume that you are nontheists for a number of reasons. I presume, also, that you would prefer not to be a theist. You hope and desire that your reasons for nontheism continue to hold strongly for you. Is that a fair assumption?

Now this:

God takes us so seriously that he will not force his will on anyone, not even in all eternity.

(Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God[Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994 (2000)], 641).

So if you'd rather not believe in God, God isn't going to make you. If you'd rather not spend eternity with God, he isn't going to make you. If Ghandi would rather think something else about God, then Ghandi's fully allowed to do whatever the hell he wants to.

"Hell," ladies and gentlemen, is simply the nasty word for a special place where God does not exist for anybody. It's a nasty word certainly, but don't let that fool you. Hell is exactly what nontheists want. They don't want the sort of God that Christians (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Jews and Muslims [thus "theists"]) believe in. God is not going to force anything down your throats. If you'd rather not hang out with him forever, he'll give you a place that lacks his presence entirely forever. Here, you are free to build all the wonderful constructions you like. Milton's Satan built a great palace named Pandemonium; you can build edifices on reincarnation, seek enlightenment, try to believe in all the religions all at once without inconsistency, do whatever the hell you want.

And this is a good thing for God to do.

Would it be a bad state if God's future interaction is not provided for all humans, if not all humans will enjoy the Beatific Vision [i.e., heaven]? Now that again will only be a bad state (as opposed to the absence of a good) if those deprived of that vision desire it all the same. If some do not desire it, it would not be a bad thing if they do not have it.

(Richard Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998], 120).

So don't get your knickers all in a not about "hell." Chill out. You don't have to worry about God there. He's finally backed off.

But you might say, "but hell is such a horrible place to be!" Well, that's what most Christians think, anyway. But that's beside the point. The point is that hell is getting what you're gunning for. Think of it in terms of a Pascalian wager: If Christians are right, non-Christians get what they want (namely, no Christian God); If Christians are wrong, non-Christians still get what they want (namely, no Christian God). You win both ways, don't you? (Christians, on the other hand, are likely to be upset with the second possibility. Thing is, there's a lot more possibilities than just these two...which could be a lot worse!)

Ah, but why do most Christians think that hell is horrible? It's because they think that God is the source of all good. Whatever good pertains to this message board is ultimately grounded in the fact that God is good. So if you were to entirely remove God's influence from any given place, what you'd get is a place with no chance of good whatsoever (so maybe no Mooting in hell!). That's why Christians think hell sucks; there's nothing possibly good about it. But hey, if you don't believe that, then please, keep your knickers straight and pressed. On your beliefs, if God's absent from a place, that's a good thing. You don't have to believe the Christians, and they aren't going to make you believe them at gunpoint either.

'Course this means that theists and nontheists can run about on Earth getting along reasonably well until they die and find out what (if anything) is going on on the other side of death. If you're not at all worried about the uncertainties of life after death, then back off from the thread and play some backgammon. But I think most folk find the various possibilities somewhat unsettling, so they put theism under a bit of scrutiny. Good on ya. Keep going. But I think the considerations in this post constitute a significant argument (in a rather sloppy form) for why Ghandi and lots of other good people aren't in heaven: they aren't in heaven because they never wanted to be there in the first place.

(Which leaves the problem of why many bad people go to heaven for a later post...which I think Rian, thankfully, is going to tacke)

[Baby-K]

But, if hell is only the absence of God, does that then mean that it also holds no evil? I've always thought that hell is a place where evil reigns, but according to your post hell is simply a lack of God?

So if hell is not evil, does evil really exist? If so, where does it originate?

Just asking 'cos I'm having a blonde day