Inter-religious conflict

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Guys, the new thread is established. It's called, "The ACLU branch of the interreligious conflict thread."

Let's rock-n-roll!

 

[pmarquette]

It is writen that one day , there will be a " one world religion " that sounds a bit like the present day " Bhai " faith : all religious men were God's representative for that culture , that nation , and that time .

The problem comes that each religion has mutually exclusive tenants of faith , each has its own vision of life after death , and some means to even out good and evil ; to punish the wicked ( karma cycle , hell , Jin & genies , purgatory , ultimate denial of self and reality )...

When we depart from Jesus , we start a sliding scale from definite good and evil to " if it feels good do it " and without conseqences , without remorse , without any punishment here and now or in the sweet by and by....

Paul states that creation bears witness to a creator , as the road signs bear witness to the police and government .... to deny what you see , to procrastinate is to be lost ...

 

[McCravey]

I think it may be possible for C S Lewis's statement to be correct on all three options.

Christ was the only begotten Son of God (as he demonstrated)
He was a lunatic (in the eyes most of those in this world, his words and teachings were different from this world's wisdom)
He died as a sinner for the sins of all of us (liers and otherwise)

 

[tcampen]

When we depart from Jesus , we start a sliding scale from definite good and evil to " if it feels good do it " and without conseqences , without remorse , without any punishment here and now or in the sweet by and by....

I am not a Christian. Thus, if your statement was true, I would support the idea that "if it feels good do it and without conseqences , without remorse , without any punishment here and now or in the sweet by and by."

But here's the rub. I do not support such a form or morality, for it would lead to chaos. I recognize moral absolutes, not because they were handed down by an omnipotent, supernatural being or beings, but because they are without exception. I believe it is evident good must necessarily be good for its own sake regardless of whether a god told us what is good and evil.

In short, I and other 80% of the world that is not Christian appear to be proof that your hypothesis is false.

 

[tcampen]

I think it may be possible for C S Lewis's statement to be correct on all three options.

Christ was the only begotten Son of God (as he demonstrated)
He was a lunatic (in the eyes most of those in this world, his words and teachings were different from this world's wisdom)
He died as a sinner for the sins of all of us (liers and otherwise)

Lewis' trilemma is, unfortunately, missing very many other extremely viable options, which exactly why it is a false trilemma. Those simply aren't the only options - in fact, the most probable options aren't even presented.

 

[McCravey]

tcampen;

I agree--I just like to pose a different line of thinking when I read an "all or nothing" scenario that C S Lewis proposes. I respect the man greatly and enjoy his works and his ability to write about Christ as a type rather than just a person (although as a person his name is greater than all other names!) The answers we seek are like gold nuggets hidden from our view. "It is the purpose of God to hide a thing and the pleasure of kings to uncover it"

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I am not a Christian. Thus, if your statement was true, I would support the idea that "if it feels good do it and without conseqences , without remorse , without any punishment here and now or in the sweet by and by."

But here's the rub. I do not support such a form or morality, for it would lead to chaos. I recognize moral absolutes, not because they were handed down by an omnipotent, supernatural being or beings, but because they are without exception. I believe it is evident good must necessarily be good for its own sake regardless of whether a god told us what is good and evil.

In short, I and other 80% of the world that is not Christian appear to be proof that your hypothesis is false.

Then who determines what is good and moral, and why is the Creator exempt from this process?

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the kind of Hell that some people do. Just had to say that because someone said that a person can not be Christian if they don't believe in Hell. That's like saying that you can't love God unless you're afraid of the Devil. Or that you can't obey the laws of the land if you aren't afraid of going to Jail. I kind of think that a love for God doesn't need fear to exist.

Anyway...I get where you're going. And I don't have an answer for you. I can only say that some religions think that anyone that isn't a member of their particular denomination and observant of all their church doctrine is going to Hell. And others think those denominations are going to Hell. Some religions think that you have to work to show yourself worthy. While still others believe it's by faith alone. I don't ascribe to the attitude that you have to align yourself with a religion to go to Heaven. But I do believe that loving God will get you there. And just to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion. Do we know for sure that the God of Muhamed or the God of Buddha isn't the God of Jesus? What if it's the same God? What if all the dogma taught by Christian churches isn't correct? It's possible that God is God is God. And that the people tha worship God in non-Christian religions are worshipping the same God. There are certainly a lot of similarities among varrying religions. Ever wonder about why that is if religions other than Christianity are wrong? I do.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I'm a Christian, but I don't believe in the kind of Hell that some people do. Just had to say that because someone said that a person can not be Christian if they don't believe in Hell. That's like saying that you can't love God unless you're afraid of the Devil. Or that you can't obey the laws of the land if you aren't afraid of going to Jail. I kind of think that a love for God doesn't need fear to exist.

Anyway...I get where you're going. And I don't have an answer for you. I can only say that some religions think that anyone that isn't a member of their particular denomination and observant of all their church doctrine is going to Hell. And others think those denominations are going to Hell. Some religions think that you have to work to show yourself worthy. While still others believe it's by faith alone. I don't ascribe to the attitude that you have to align yourself with a religion to go to Heaven. But I do believe that loving God will get you there. And just to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion. Do we know for sure that the God of Muhamed or the God of Buddha isn't the God of Jesus? What if it's the same God? What if all the dogma taught by Christian churches isn't correct? It's possible that God is God is God. And that the people tha worship God in non-Christian religions are worshipping the same God. There are certainly a lot of similarities among varrying religions. Ever wonder about why that is if religions other than Christianity are wrong? I do.

Well, it's a question of authority: what is the source of truth on the matters of God? If we are Christians, it is the Bible. To be a Christian means that you believe and live according to the teachings of Christ. And Christ did teach that there is a hell. So that would have to be resolved.

Also, Jesus teaches that He si the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. And we have the first commandment that says we are to worship God only. So these are core docrines of the Christian faith. There isn't room for any other God, because there is only one, and it wasn't the gods made by man.

Christianity is the only religion that offers atonement for sin. Men make religions according to what suits them, and that's where these other religions come from. And there are demonic influences as well.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[Natro]

Christianity is the only religion that offers atonement for sin. Men make religions according to what suits them, and that's where these other religions come from. And there are demonic influences as well.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

Why does your God allow demons? He could easily smite them. So God must want people to be influenced by demons.

Men make religions according to what suits them

Truer words have never been said.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Why does your God allow demons? He could easily smite them. So God must want people to be influenced by demons.


Truer words have never been said.

Yes. God is merciful, but He is also sovereign. Demons are still his servants, although wicked ones, and they work out God's purposes, whether through their obedience of His will, or through their sin. For some, God uses them as purifying influences. Sometimes they are used as instruments of wrath, but the spirit realm is much like the physical realmin that even those who displease God are allowed to remain for their alloted time on earth, even though God could smite them as well. The demons are allowed to continue on as well, although even in their evil, they end up achieving God's will. They always lose.

Here is an example:

2 Corinthians 12:1-10. God used Paul to write this portion. He is telling of God's use of a demonic spirit to humble and sanctify him, theeby increasing his power:

It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2*I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3*And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth 4*How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful F34 for a man to utter. 5*Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. 6*For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. 7*And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. 8*For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. 9*And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10*Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.

 

[tcampen]

Then who determines what is good and moral, and why is the Creator exempt from this process?

I never said the creator is exempt from this process, just that there is a great deal of difference in thought regarding the creator(s) him/her/themselves. Furthermore, it seems evident that any determination of right and wrong by fiat alone simply cannot be right. Saddam Hussein made such determinations, and was acceptable to those who accepted that he had the ultimate authority to make such decisions simply be virtue of who he was. But only by recognizing a standard of morality independent of the Saddam can we determine whether Saddam's claims of right and wrong are correct. (BTW, I am in NO WAY comparing Saddam with any concept of God, just trying to illustrate a point.)

When there is a claim God took some sort of action, and that that action was good, then how do we test that claim? We must have an independent standard against which to test that very claim. That appears to me to be the reasonable approach.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

First of all, I'm noticing in my last post that the punctuation in the KJV makes smilies that aren't supposed to be there! Hahaha! Kind of alters the tone a bit...

I never said the creator is exempt from this process, just that there is a great deal of difference in thought regarding the creator(s) him/her/themselves.

Okay! We're getting somewhere. Good point. We'll have to tackle this one in a bit.

Furthermore, it seems evident that any determination of right and wrong by fiat alone simply cannot be right. Saddam Hussein made such determinations, and was acceptable to those who accepted that he had the ultimate authority to make such decisions simply be virtue of who he was. But only by recognizing a standard of morality independent of the Saddam can we determine whether Saddam's claims of right and wrong are correct. (BTW, I am in NO WAY comparing Saddam with any concept of God, just trying to illustrate a point.)

Exactly!!! This is why we cannot depend on man to make these determinations. So it seems we agree that God must be the standard. Now, how do we know which God? THat is likely to be a long treatise, so I will save that one for tomorrow.

When there is a claim God took some sort of action, and that that action was good, then how do we test that claim?

Excellent question. I would say by His own law. And as you wisely pointed out, this requires a careful thought over which God truly is God.

We must have an independent standard against which to test that very claim. That appears to me to be the reasonable approach.

Amen. And that standard would be God.

 

[tcampen]

Exactly!!! This is why we cannot depend on man to make these determinations. So it seems we agree that God must be the standard. Now, how do we know which God? THat is likely to be a long treatise, so I will save that one for tomorrow.

"When there is a claim God took some sort of action, and that that action was good, then how do we test that claim?"

Excellent question. I would say by His own law. And as you wisely pointed out, this requires a careful thought over which God truly is God.
Amen. And that standard would be God.

Whitehorse, what you propose is blatent circular logic. I'll break it down for you:

1. Whatever God does is right and good and perfect.
2. We test whether this is true by the bible, which is the ultimate authority.
3. The Bible is the word of God, which means it is right and good and perfect.
4. Since the Bible is consistent with God's actions, and visa-versa God is good and right and perfect.

Applying this kind of logic to anything else would never pass the laugh test, but somehow one's concept of God is exempt from rational thought? I just don't see how it can work that way.

My point is that an INDEPENDENT standard must be applied to test whether particular claims about God's conduct are good and right. This would include claims about God found in the bible.

Using your "logic" would mean God's determinations of right and wrong are made by fiat, because God's determinations of right and wrong in the bible as handed down with a resounding "because I said so" ultimately. If that's good enough for you, fine. But some of us prefer something of slightly more substance behind such determinations.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

So. Are we in a bad mood?

I disagree with your concept of "circular reasoning." It's a commonly used word game, but inaccurate. It's like receiving a memo from the company's new president, greeting everyone and introducing himself as the new president. It's like saying it's not possible because he says in the memo he's the president. And where does it say he's the president? In the memo.

Sounds clever, somewhat like, "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it? See, He isn't all-powerful!" whoch is just a semantics game, because in reality it proves He is all powerful.

The Lord gives His word. Everything He tells us is in His word. Including the fact that it is His word. It's not circular anymore than the memo from the president. People never disagree with scripture because of it's contents-not really. It's because of a desire for it not to be so. But our desires cannot change reality.