Author | Thread |
|
01/26/2009 04:36:36 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by dahkota: Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only path to God. So you have to believe it or not believe in Jesus. Period, end of discussion. Either it is true or it is not true, that is ultimately the choice people must make.
Likewise, the Bible is either the inspired Word of God, or it is not. You choose. Catholics do not accept it as such and have added to it (Church teachings, Papal decrees, etc). Christians do accept it as such and have not added to it. You CANNOT have it both ways. |
Umm, you have a lot to learn about Catholicism. You might rethink being an authority on it and start reading more. |
What statement of mine is incorrect?
|
|
|
01/26/2009 04:38:40 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
That's just ignorant on your part. |
I know where the ignorance is and it has nothing to do with my part.
Again, your attitude reflects why people turn away from religion.
I thought one of your duties as a Christian was to help bring others into the fold, not alienate them and turn them away. Maybe that's the "other Christians"... |
Telling people of the love of Christ is my duty and I've not done anything to contradict that.
But you don't "win" thirsty people by pussyfooting around the notion that poison is water. You lovingly point them to the water and warn them of the poison.
|
|
|
01/26/2009 05:22:08 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf: You really need to learn to read before you reply.
Abel and Moses did have a path to God, the Law and Sacrifice. Jesus came and fulfilled the Law and the Sacrifice and so accepting this is now the only path to God. No paradox or difficulty at all, except to the blind. |
Oh, I'm fairly well versed on the subject, but perhaps I'm reading the wrong books. I just did a keyword search of 20 popular English-language bibles, and the phrase "Law and Sacrifice" does not appear once in any of them.
Even if it did, the paradox/difficulty remains... if, as you claim, the rules suddenly changed after Jesus arrived, then Africans, Australians, Asians and everyone in the Western Hemisphere were pretty much screwed until the word got around (nearly 1500 years in the latter case). Many parts of the world still are... so much for spreading the love. :-/ |
|
|
01/26/2009 05:22:46 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf: Originally posted by dahkota: Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
The Bible clearly states that Jesus is the only path to God. So you have to believe it or not believe in Jesus. Period, end of discussion. Either it is true or it is not true, that is ultimately the choice people must make.
Likewise, the Bible is either the inspired Word of God, or it is not. You choose. Catholics do not accept it as such and have added to it (Church teachings, Papal decrees, etc). Christians do accept it as such and have not added to it. You CANNOT have it both ways. |
Umm, you have a lot to learn about Catholicism. You might rethink being an authority on it and start reading more. |
What statement of mine is incorrect? |
Catholics believe that Jesus is the only true path to God. They believe in Jesus.
Catholics believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. |
|
|
01/26/2009 05:24:00 PM · #455 |
I Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
I'm pretty sure people will understand I consider this thread to have gotten seriously off course at about 7:43 AM DPC time. |
|
|
01/26/2009 07:27:37 PM · #456 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf: Originally posted by Spazmo99: Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
That's just ignorant on your part. |
I know where the ignorance is and it has nothing to do with my part.
Again, your attitude reflects why people turn away from religion.
I thought one of your duties as a Christian was to help bring others into the fold, not alienate them and turn them away. Maybe that's the "other Christians"... |
Telling people of the love of Christ is my duty and I've not done anything to contradict that.
But you don't "win" thirsty people by pussyfooting around the notion that poison is water. You lovingly point them to the water and warn them of the poison. |
Yes, you have.
Every time you post, your words are the poison to your duty. A message of love disguised with words of hate isn't a message of love anymore. Your words repel those who would need God's love most. |
|
|
01/26/2009 08:28:40 PM · #457 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf: Originally posted by david_c: Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf: Likewise, the Bible is either the inspired Word of God, or it is not. You choose. Catholics do not accept it as such and have added to it |
lol. You might want to double-check that one, Hawkeye. I'm pretty sure Catholics consider the bible to be the word of god. What, exactly, has the RCC "added" to it? |
Church tradition, the Apocrypha, and other sources are all on the same "authority" level as Scripture (per Roman Catholicism) |
Really? Where does it say that in "Roman Catholicism"? Or, is that just an opinion you hold?
|
|
|
01/27/2009 09:15:28 AM · #458 |
Hawkeye-
You may wnat to read this. The basic tenets of catholicism.
I am very aware that some denominations are very anti-catholic in their teachings - and even that some of these denominations provide relatively logical arguments for their critiques - however - you truly should research it for yourself.
A couple more links for you.
The Pope written by an atheist.
Mary from the Catholic Enclyclopedia.
Message edited by author 2009-01-27 09:29:29. |
|
|
01/27/2009 11:07:58 AM · #459 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf: Church tradition, the Apocrypha, and other sources are all on the same "authority" level as Scripture (per Roman Catholicism) |
The Catholic church has such sources from 2,000 years of biblical scholars arguing and researching.
I take it you have the answers because you read the Bible and did your own research. That's sounds proud of you to trump 2,000 years of tradition. |
|
|
01/29/2009 01:40:19 PM · #460 |
Hey dahkota, I got a question for you. How do you differentiate between a "religion" and a "philosophy"? Your bringing Taoism up last week made me think about this. Based on whatever your answer, maybe you can seperate the list below into the two categories.
Christianity
Buddhism
Taoism
Confucianism
Humanism
Agnosticism
Atheism
I suppose I'll allow a "neither" category (that's mainly to keep Shannon from jumping in. ;)) but you'll have to explain why. |
|
|
01/29/2009 01:59:20 PM · #461 |
Quick answer as I am pressed for time - more detail can follow tomorrow:
A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, (really basic definition according to wiki)
Religion
Christianity
Buddhism
Taoism
Confucianism
All the above contain a measure of what is mentioned in the Wiki definition, though to varying degrees.
Either/Or
Humanism - depending on your method of practice, if practiced at all. Humanism covers so much ground that it is impossible to define it so narrowly. It is like insisting Christianity requires belief in the trinity.
Neither
Agnosticism - a philosophical view (but not philosophy) that the existence of God is unknown or unknowable
Atheism - a view (not necessarily philosophic) that a supernatural being known as God does not exist.
There's my short answer and I'm sticking to it. |
|
|
01/29/2009 04:11:43 PM · #462 |
OK, that's interesting. I was wandering around wiki and I came across a stub on Soteriology ("the branch of theology that deals with salvation") and it noted that Soteriology was an important distinction between religion and philosophy. With that in mind I would split the list differently:
Religion:
Christianity
Buddhism
Philosophy:
Taoism
Confucianism
Humanism
I guess I would likewise consider agnosticism and atheism philosophies, but with a more limited scope than the others I mentioned.
I'm not saying one view is right and the other isn't, but it does often seem to be that when people have disagreements about things it is about a difference in baseline definitions rather than the actual subject at hand. |
|
|
01/29/2009 06:24:44 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: OK, that's interesting. I was wandering around wiki and I came across a stub on Soteriology ("the branch of theology that deals with salvation") and it noted that Soteriology was an important distinction between religion and philosophy. With that in mind I would split the list differently:
Religion:
Christianity
Buddhism
Philosophy:
Taoism
Confucianism
Humanism
I guess I would likewise consider agnosticism and atheism philosophies, but with a more limited scope than the others I mentioned.
I'm not saying one view is right and the other isn't, but it does often seem to be that when people have disagreements about things it is about a difference in baseline definitions rather than the actual subject at hand. |
Curious, where would you put your non-belief in Zeus?
ETA: So it makes sense. lol
Message edited by author 2009-01-29 18:25:39.
|
|
|
01/29/2009 07:24:55 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by yanko: Curious, where would you put your non-belief in Zeus?
ETA: So it makes sense. lol |
I'd put it in Christianity since we believe in only one God. ;) |
|
|
01/29/2009 10:34:28 PM · #465 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: OK, that's interesting. I was wandering around wiki and I came across a stub on
("the branch of theology that deals with salvation") and it noted that Soteriology was an important distinction between religion and philosophy. With that in mind I would split the list differently:
Religion:
Christianity
Buddhism
Philosophy:
Taoism
Confucianism
Humanism
I guess I would likewise consider agnosticism and atheism philosophies, but with a more limited scope than the others I mentioned.
I'm not saying one view is right and the other isn't, but it does often seem to be that when people have disagreements about things it is about a difference in baseline definitions rather than the actual subject at hand. |
Interesting. But I'm troubled - Wiki definition of salvation:
"In theology, salvation can mean three related things: being saved from, or liberation from, something, such as suffering or the punishment of sin – also called deliverance; being saved for something, such as an afterlife or participating in the Reign of God – also called redemption; or social liberation and healing, as in liberation theology." And further:
"Soteriology is the study of salvation. Many religions give emphasis to salvation of one form or another and as such have their own soteriologies. Some soteriologies are primarily concerned with relationships to or unity with deity. Others more strongly emphasize the cultivation of knowledge or virtue. Soteriologies also differ in what sort of salvation they promise."
Nirvana is salvation in Buddhism. I would argue, with regard to Taoism, that the entire purpose of the religion is a form of salvation (as defined above) - being one with Tao, which is essentially God. I'm not that familiar with Confucianism, having barely touched on it in my studies.
but notice you called it a branch of theology - one aspect of an entire tree. To limit theology to only that one branch is redefining theology, much more narrowly, is it not?
And I disagree about Agnosticism and Atheism. They are not philosophies, they are world views. In Wiki (your favorite) philosophy is defined as:
"the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language."
I don't think that, in general, agnostics study their maybe belief in God, nor do I think Atheists study their non-belief in God. One can have a materialist philosophy or a scientific philosophy about the world that includes the view that God doesn't exist, but the view isn't central to their philosophy - it is a by-product of it.
|
|
|
01/30/2009 12:54:46 AM · #466 |
You know, I swear I had read or heard somewhere that Salvation could mean "to be made whole" but I can find nothing to support that now. I'll have to keep looking. That definition could definitely have connotation in eastern religions such as Buddhism. |
|
|
01/30/2009 01:55:50 AM · #467 |
I have a question, which can hopefully be answered by the educated sort.
why is it that the American government over the years has become more and more religious based. What ever happen to separation of church and state. in no other developed country does a politicians religious background ever get brought up, Up here in Canada I can't think of the last time I heard a politician speak of god (except Stephen Harper but he doesn't count). |
|
|
01/30/2009 06:45:29 AM · #468 |
Originally posted by bradshaw: I have a question, which can hopefully be answered by the educated sort.
why is it that the American government over the years has become more and more religious based. What ever happen to separation of church and state. in no other developed country does a politicians religious background ever get brought up, Up here in Canada I can't think of the last time I heard a politician speak of god (except Stephen Harper but he doesn't count). |
The Communism 'scare' of the middle twentieth century had everyone wanting to separate themselves from the godless athiests. In the 30's the country made it through the depression. In the 40s, the country made it through WWII. In the 50s came the cold war.
In 1951, "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegience.
In 1955, "In God we Trust" was added to money. |
|
|
01/30/2009 08:53:56 AM · #469 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by yanko: Curious, where would you put your non-belief in Zeus? |
I'd put it in Christianity since we believe in only one God. ;) |
Now that's refreshing. After recent discussions where one or two people attempted to exclude the largest denominations of their own faith, you'd define anyone who doesn't believe in Zeus as Christian. Amen brother! Oh, darn... that wasn't one of the possible answers. You posed that question as multiple choice: religion, philosophy or neither, so you're just avoiding the question.
Message edited by author 2009-01-30 08:54:14. |
|
|
01/30/2009 12:48:47 PM · #470 |
Originally posted by dahkota: Originally posted by bradshaw: I have a question, which can hopefully be answered by the educated sort.
why is it that the American government over the years has become more and more religious based. What ever happen to separation of church and state. in no other developed country does a politicians religious background ever get brought up, Up here in Canada I can't think of the last time I heard a politician speak of god (except Stephen Harper but he doesn't count). |
The Communism 'scare' of the middle twentieth century had everyone wanting to separate themselves from the godless athiests. In the 30's the country made it through the depression. In the 40s, the country made it through WWII. In the 50s came the cold war.
In 1951, "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegience.
In 1955, "In God we Trust" was added to money. |
yeah but Canada went through all of that as well yet we still separate church and state what makes us so diffrent? |
|
|
01/30/2009 01:12:28 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Originally posted by DrAchoo: Originally posted by yanko: Curious, where would you put your non-belief in Zeus? |
I'd put it in Christianity since we believe in only one God. ;) |
Now that's refreshing. After recent discussions where one or two people attempted to exclude the largest denominations of their own faith, you'd define anyone who doesn't believe in Zeus as Christian. Amen brother! Oh, darn... that wasn't one of the possible answers. You posed that question as multiple choice: religion, philosophy or neither, so you're just avoiding the question. |
I would put it under religion and to be specific (since he was talking about my non-belief in Zeus), Christianity. It's not an exclusive non-belief though. Lots of other people hold it as well and they may fall in many of the other categories. |
|
|
01/30/2009 01:18:20 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by bradshaw: yeah but Canada went through all of that as well yet we still separate church and state what makes us so diffrent? |
You know, believe it or not, the separation of church and state is much stronger than it was even in the 50s. I just read a great book on the history of the Supreme Court called "The Nine" and the author relates that the separation was strengthened in the 60s and 70s under the Burger court. The court since has only mildly chipped away at this although the current Stevens court is likely to chip further away in the years to come.
What you are talking about is the fact religion plays a role to a greater degree in the lives of Americans than many other countries. These things apparently matter to more Americans than, say, Canadians. That is why these issues come up, not because of a lack of separation. |
|
|
01/30/2009 01:19:11 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo: I would put it under religion and to be specific (since he was talking about my non-belief in Zeus), Christianity. It's not an exclusive non-belief though. Lots of other people hold it as well and they may fall in many of the other categories. |
So your non-belief is religion, but the non-belief of others (per your earlier post) is philosophy. You're attempting to dodge the very definition of disbelief– claiming that non-belief of Zeus is actually belief in something else. You're effectively working from a given that everybody has to believe in something, but that's begging the question, a logical fallacy. Practically no one on the planet believes in Zeus, NOT because they believe in something else (whether monotheist, polytheist or atheist), but simply because they don't believe in Zeus. Period. It's not a religion OR a philosophy any more than not believing in bigfoot or Green Lantern would fall under those categories.
Message edited by author 2009-01-30 13:34:05. |
|
|
01/30/2009 01:33:09 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by bradshaw:
yeah but Canada went through all of that as well yet we still separate church and state what makes us so diffrent? |
Different politics, different mind set. Canada went through the great depression and through WWII, no doubt. Canada also was effected by the cold war and anti-communism, but it wasn't as strong there. The government in place wasn't as strongly opposed to communism (not that they were for it, they just didn't overreact to it. They didn't have J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy controlling things with a religious president at the helm). The tension during the cold war was, primarily, the two superpowers - the US and the USSR. Not to downplay Canada, but they weren't a superpower. Each country had to one up the other to be the biggest bully on the hill. With USSR pushing atheism along with communism, and trying to spread it throughout Europe and Asia, the US reacted by showing that they 'were with God.'
Going forward, it seems to alternate between presidents, with recent republican presidents pushing a religious agenda because they can (with the exception of G.B. sr). That is my simple take on it. |
|
|
01/30/2009 01:34:09 PM · #475 |
Originally posted by bradshaw: Originally posted by dahkota: Originally posted by bradshaw: I have a question, which can hopefully be answered by the educated sort.
why is it that the American government over the years has become more and more religious based. What ever happen to separation of church and state. in no other developed country does a politicians religious background ever get brought up, Up here in Canada I can't think of the last time I heard a politician speak of god (except Stephen Harper but he doesn't count). |
The Communism 'scare' of the middle twentieth century had everyone wanting to separate themselves from the godless athiests. In the 30's the country made it through the depression. In the 40s, the country made it through WWII. In the 50s came the cold war.
In 1951, "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegience.
In 1955, "In God we Trust" was added to money. |
yeah but Canada went through all of that as well yet we still separate church and state what makes us so diffrent? |
what makes us so diffrent?
Most of the Canadians I know are simply more liberal than most of the Americans I know. Their views on individual gun ownership, abortion, same sex marriage - are more liberal and thus it seems like a logical extension for them to be more separating of "church and state". One of the liberal agenda items here in the states is to see a greater separation of "church and state" even to the point of eliminating manger scenes at christmas time. What makes canadians different (to me) is your political leanings. A bit more left.
|
|