Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
RÃ*an, when you get back and if you read this, would you mind giving me your opinion on my statements on page 45 about who enters the kingdom?

Lief - OK, I'm back now .... comments on the way.... *reads back thru posts*

I agree with you pretty much all of the way, except your conclusion (but perhaps I am misunderstanding it?)

Lief's conclusion
So what I'm trying to bring across is that while you can reach heaven through love, by following Jesus' spirit and following his moral law, it is SO MUCH EASIER to simply accept the words that he has spoken to the world. He has given us the clue to live by. His words enable us to live according to his law, to know what constitutes a sin and what will throw you into the devil's clutches. Following Jesus is the key, following his way. It is possible to struggle along the narrow path, you are walking on his way. But you are walking along it, then, without the benefit of his words and guidance that will protect you.

I think that in a way, you're right when you say "you can reach heaven through love, by following Jesus' spirit and following his moral law" and "it is possible to struggle along the narrow path". I think it's right in the same way that I could say "If I had wings, I could fly" - IOW, it may be true, but the sad fact is that I do NOT have wings *sigh*. And the sad fact is that NO ONE can live without sin *SIGH!* (Romans 3:23 and lots of other places). And that once a person has sinned, then there is rightly and justly a penalty that must be paid, or the result is death (Romans 6:23). And we all know that we have sinned (Romans 2:15). (and again, for the non-Christians, sinning means falling short of God's perfect and holy standard which is for everyone's good - it doesn't mean being a "horrible person". Even "good people" have sinned, just not as much as "bad people". We ALL fall short.)

But then the GOOD news (the meaning of the word "gospel"!) is that God has provided a "free gift" to us - a way to have the penalty paid for us, through the substitutionary death of Jesus (there actually WAS someone that lived a sinless life - Jesus! But he's the only one that ever did and ever will) - this is all over the Bible, but some refs are Romans 6:23, 8:1, 3:24, chapter 5, etc.

And here's another ref for the impossibility of flying w/o Christ(living a sinless life) - Romans 3:20.

Does that make sense?
Did I misunderstand what you were saying? (that you can get to heaven by your own works w/o Christ, but it's a lot harder)

BTW, I totally agree that one can "get to heaven" w/o even having heard the name of Jesus - cf. Abraham. God would not be just if the way was only available to a subset of people, and the Bible states that God desires EVERYONE to accept the free gift of salvation, so it must be available to everyone. It's another sad fact, however, that not everyone WANTS to take it, because part of that means acknowledging that you, yourself are NOT God, and that you, yourself, cannot live a perfect life.

BTW 2 - Did you ever see my discussion on this thread about the "desert island" scenario? I talked a lot about that issue (people being saved before Christ died) in those posts.

BTW 3 - I think the verses you were looking for are in John 14.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Whoah...*nearly falls over* I just read the last 15 pages...that can't be healthy...meh...too much happened while I was out sailing*!

Glad your parents' anniversary went well, Rian! Ok, now I'm going to attempt to say things. If they don't make any sense, well, then it's no different than usual...

Rian: You know, no one TRULY thinks all beliefs are equal. Indeed, even "poly-truth" EG, by espousing a belief that there are many truths, denies or excludes the possibility of a single, or even dual truth, and (indirectly) labels those who believe in a single truth as elitists; indeed you yourself do the same thing.

You're right. I admit it. I am an elitist, because I think my "poly-truth" belief is superior. However, I think it is superior because it is more generally accepting and open-minded. I think. Right, I'm not making sense, am I? Am soooo lost after reading all of that! Anyway, yes, I label single truth types as elitists and so on...I gladly admit to this fault, and will continue to think myself superior. What a horrid person I am

But then again, thinking like that, you can't really get anywhere, can you? No matter what you're exlcuding other peoples beliefs, and the reason I'm for the poly-truth belief is because I think it's the best possible of the various options. Anyway. Um.

There is so much more that I've missed, but I have to go back to job-hunting now, and anyway I'm about to fall over from staring at the green, yellow and off-white screen for waaay too long...

*And praying to the wind gods. sadly, they did not listen, and we had no wind.

[Rían]

*did I say that?*

No, Gwai did - and it was well-written, IMO, and I agree with it. I've said similar things meself!

What you say does make sense, EG, that you believe it because it is "more generally accepting and open-minded". The culture in this day and age seems to put not offending anyone very high up on the scale of things to do, which is well and good, if the motives are right.

However, it is wrong, IMO, to make not offending anyone more important than stating the truth, esp. if the truth is about a terrible, but FIXABLE, condition. Believe me, I don't post on this thread for fun (except that polite and intelligent discussion is fun) - I KNOW that much of what I say will be disagreeable and even offensive to people, and many people look down on me because of what I post . My motive in posting here is sharing what I truly believe to be the truth with people that have questions, because I care about people and think they are important - and to me, that's more important than everyone thinking well of me.

oooh, sailing sounds like fun! Sorry the wind didn't cooperate

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Oops! Well, after reading all of those posts...whoosh...hard to tell anymore!

Anyway, well, I'm not actually worried about offending people or not offending them. Harsh as it may sound, I don't really care. However, I do try to be open-minded and not say one person is wrong and another set of people are right. It's not so much to do with offending people (sorry if I'm contradicting what I've said before. I confuse myself often.) but it's more to do with my belief that we really can't know anything for sure and therefore it is best to not pick one right truth. Something like that. What I believe, aside from that, is the "truth" that I like the best, however, I'm perfectly open to the idea of being wrong. Well, I mean, I wouldn't like it if I found out I were wrong, and, for example, ended up banished to the 7th level of Hell According To Dante, but I'm willing to accept that I am wrong. Something like that. Difference between accepting and liking? Gah.

I'm glad we can all state our seperate beliefs and discuss from there. Yay, go us.

And now I'd really better get going, and try to find out if there's some god of jobs that I can sacrifice too

[Rían]

oh, ok, I'm glad you explained, I think most people pick the poly-truth thing because of the "don't offend anyone" thing. You're more of an agnostic, then, if I understand what you're saying this time

Good luck on the job hunt, that can be a real irksome thing to do!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
No matter what you're exlcuding other peoples beliefs

Precisely my point.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Precisely my point.

Which is why I pick the one that is the least exclusive.

Rian: I wouldn't call myself agnostic, because I beleive rather firmly in the existance of gods, and in, well, not quite the three-fold rule but something similar. I'm not Wiccan, but pretty close. I'm probably not making much sense now because I say I believe in that but I'm open to being wrong. It makes sense to me but I'm not sure I can explain it. It's that poly-truth thing. I don't really think I'm going to Hell, in fact I KNOW I'm not. But other people can believe I am and in some sense they'll be right because I'm certainly not going to Heaven. However it will not be Hell for ME. If that makes sense...ugh...

[Rían]

modified agnostic? (there is a god/are gods, but which one is right cannot be known)

Well, I won't label you, I really shouldn't have tried, I was just in an engineering mood. I'll just remember that "we really can't know anything for sure and therefore it is best to not pick one right truth" is where you're coming from.

Now was it this thread where you were saying I needed to talk some more on the God commanding people to be killed topic?

*gets another Dr. Pepper and starts scanning thru threads*

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Ok, thanks
Aye, I believe this was the thread. If you wouldn't mind, I'd be glad to hear more. And also my question about why Christianity is supposedly better, if you have the time. Thanks

[Rían]

OK, but it will take a while and a few long-winded posts....

Maybe I'll start by looking up some previous posts, because I know of some that I made several months ago that would apply.....

*ponder, ponder....*

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
...If you wouldn't mind, I'd be glad to hear more. And also my question about why Christianity is supposedly better, if you have the time. Thanks

*puts face in hands and weeps* no... no... no... what have you done?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*puts face in hands and weeps* no... no... no... what have you done?

Just wanted to hear their reasons...perhaps I am too curious for my own good sometimes

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
*puts face in hands and weeps* no... no... no... what have you done?

You mean thing you! What, am I boring? Shall I miss this great opportunity to increase my post count?

OK, I give you permission to NOT read my long-winded posts (but you KNOW you want to, baby! heh heh)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*gets another Dr. Pepper and starts scanning thru threads*

Ewww, Dr. Pepper!

[Rían]

I was going to address the issue that IRex, I think, brought up (the Numbers 31 thing, I think it was, where God directs lots of people to get killed), but then I looked back and found this around page 45 or so, so I"ll address this first, EG, if that's what you would like.

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
[B]But anyway. I feel there haven't been very complete answers in some places, especially from Rian and Gwaimir. I certainly appreciate the effort made by both of you, don't get me wrong! However, I feel there could be more complete answers.

Well, at least I get some points for sheer volume I'm glad you appreciate my effort, thanks for telling me that . I think that I've by far posted the most on this thread, and it has been a lot of work. I'll try to be more complete now on this subject, to the best of my limited ability.

First, Rian, about the "fluffy god" stuff.
Well, you've said many times now that we're taking a simplistic viewpoint, and that god is not "fluffy," however, it doesn't seem like you've actually answered the question.
It's been said many a time before, but I'm going to go off on my broken record thing again. . .how can God be considered loving, etc, when to not accept God is to go to Hell? How does is this "good" for the people, "God's children?" Instead of loving, even in a sort of parenting kind of way, this seems like a jealous, selfish god. "Accept me or suffer! I want you to worship only me! All other gods are false!" It's all through the bible, it seems, like with the golden calf. False idols and so on. And here I'm referring to God, not the Holy Trinity, and therefore including the Judaism. It's Old Testament stuff I'm referring to. Anyway. So, could you explain this to me? Please? I'd really appreciate it, because all the evidence I've heard thus far points to God being quite selfish and jealous, rather than loving.

Wow, where do I start? First of all, I know I addressed the hell issue - maybe I'll do a search and see if I can link up to something - hang on a minute....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
1) I was going to address the issue that IRex, I think, brought up (the Numbers 31 thing, I think it was, where God directs lots of people to get killed), but then I looked back and found this around 2) page 45 or so, so I"ll address this first, EG, if that's what you would like.


3) Well, at least I get some points for sheer volume I'm glad you appreciate my effort, thanks for telling me that . I think that I've by far posted the most on this thread, and it has been a lot of work. I'll try to be more complete now on this subject, to the best of my limited ability.

1) 'Twas GrayMouser.
2) -looks at page number- And we're on 60!
3) I certainly agree that you've posted far more than anyone else here. Kudos to you.

[Rían]

I did a search and I have talked a lot about it, but I think it would be better if I just answered in light of your specific post instead. If you have loads of free time (yeah, RIGHT!) or are trying to avoid something, then you can do a search with my name and "hell" and read back over some of the stuff I wrote.

First point - "how can God be considered loving, etc, when to not accept God is to go to Hell?"

I think the only way to address this is to point out that according to Christian doctrine, going to Hell is a choice made by people that have free will given to them by God. (can you see that this is a complex subject and this is going to take awhile? Because now we've also brought in the whole concept of free will, in addition to the definition of goodness and the concepts of heaven and hell!)

Let me start this way - I think your particular problem with this area, EG, might be based on your drawing an invalid conclusion from something that you said - "we really can't know anything for sure". I think that because you believe that, then perhaps you (incorrectly, IMO) draw the conclusion that there ISN'T any one truth out there (or actually, I think you're drawing that conclusion w/o realizing it). Those are 2 completely different things - thinking that you can't KNOW the truth and thinking that there IS no truth. I believe that it's logical to believe that there is indeed a truth about the way things are - do you?

One example - by observation, we can see that the earth exists . Now, there must be one way that it actually DID come into existence (and plenty of wrong guesses!), don't you agree? We may not ever KNOW that true way, but it EXISTS.

Another example - my daughter says that my son hit her first, and my son said my daughter hit him first. Are they both right, or is there an actual truth involved here? IOW, in both examples, I consider the truth to be what you would see if you could "play back" an event.

I guess I should stop there and see if you agree with me so far, or if it makes sense so far.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
3) I certainly agree that you've posted far more than anyone else here. Kudos to you.

"tanks!"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Alas, I fear EG has logged off, leaving the two of us alone.

It was your daughter, Rian. Girls fight dirty.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

First off, thanks! I really appreciate the large amount of effort you've put into this thread!

Originally posted by RÃ*an
First point - "how can God be considered loving, etc, when to not accept God is to go to Hell?"

I think the only way to address this is to point out that according to Christian doctrine, going to Hell is a choice made by people that have free will given to them by God. (can you see that this is a complex subject and this is going to take awhile? Because now we've also brought in the whole concept of free will, in addition to the definition of goodness and the concepts of heaven and hell!)

Let me start this way - I think your particular problem with this area, EG, might be based on your drawing an invalid conclusion from something that you said - "we really can't know anything for sure". I think that because you believe that, then perhaps you (incorrectly, IMO) draw the conclusion that there ISN'T any one truth out there (or actually, I think you're drawing that conclusion w/o realizing it). Those are 2 completely different things - thinking that you can't KNOW the truth and thinking that there IS no truth. I believe that it's logical to believe that there is indeed a truth about the way things are - do you?

One example - by observation, we can see that the earth exists . Now, there must be one way that it actually DID come into existence (and plenty of wrong guesses!), don't you agree? We may not ever KNOW that true way, but it EXISTS.

Another example - my daughter says that my son hit her first, and my son said my daughter hit him first. Are they both right, or is there an actual truth involved here? IOW, in both examples, I consider the truth to be what you would see if you could "play back" an event.

I guess I should stop there and see if you agree with me so far, or if it makes sense so far.

Oooh, free will...*eyes glaze over*
okay, enough of me being silly. . .

I do think it is logical to believe there is a truth about the way things are, however, I think it is further possible and even logical to believe that there is more than one truth about the way things are. I know that sounds rather illogical, so I'm going to work on coming up with an explanation for that somwhow. I'll start with saying that not everything can possibly contain more than one truth. You used the existance of the earth, so I'll use that too. (Of course, all of our perceptions about the world could be wrong, and it's possible we don't really exist in the way we think we do. For all we know we could be brains in vats [thank you Descartes] but for the sake of this we'll just ignore that possibility.) So, I think the way the world came into being does actually leave room for a little bit in the way of multiple truths, especially if you're using the big bang theory for a base. But that gets really wierd:

We all think the world exists, and we all accept this. Therefore, the earth must have come into being in some way. Say there was a Big Bang, simultaneously directed by multiple deities. Or something of the sort. I'm confusing myself now, so I'll move on and get back to that later, eh?

On to your next example. In cases such as children fighting, while there are multiple perspectives, the truth has less options. In something that simple, there really is only One True Way In Which The Events Could Have Happened. Unless they both hit each other at the same time, either your son or your daughter hit the other one first. But this example seems rather over-simplified for discussing something like the existance of god(s), heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc.

While things really only happened ONE way in an example like that, (unless, like me, you believe in the multi-world theory) something like the existance of immortal souls, and the fates thereof, that is much MUCH bigger, and has so many more possiblities.

I really couldn't say EXACTLY where I am going with this, I'm mostly just thinking "out loud." But I understand what you said in your last post, and please do continue if you can

Besides, now I have to make myself dinner. This is when being a veggie can get REALLY annoying...