I'm knew at blog rings and what not, so forgive me if i've posted this improperly in some shape, way, or fashion.

Anyway, hello. I have a question, joydriven.

I know a guy from Gambia, Africa (tiny little place on the east coast) and he follows Islam. I, however, am atheist. We joke from time to time and exchange tidbits just to playfully bother eachother. He is probably one of the greatest people I know.

But you see, spending time with him raised an interesting question:
Where will god place followers of other religions in the Kingdom of Heaven, supposing they are even allowed there in the first place?

*raises hand and bounces frantically up and down in his seat*

Ooh! Ooh! I know! I know!

Why was Abraham asked to sacrifice his 12-year-old son?







Because if he'd been 13, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.

Ba-DUM-bum! :haha:

As I understand it, the pre-Christian (maybe pre-Jewish?) roots of the faith in YHWH did require sacrifice. I suspect that the faithful were required to make sacrifices to be absolved of sins.

I talked about this with my landlord nearly a month ago, as he happens to have a Master's in Theology. He started studying as a devout Roman Catholic, and finished up as a fierce atheist.

The death of Christ was 'the greatest sacrifice that could ever be made'. Because Christ was sacrificed, the people of the faith no longer had to make sacrifices.

Bob thought that it was kinda wierd that, because God wanted to forgive us of our sins, he sacrificed his son so that he could forgive us of our sins.

(I also introduced him to the idea, found in Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, that the religion amongst the tribes in the hills of Ethiopia. Not only is this were the language family (of Hebrew and Arabic) comes from, but supposedly they still have a tradition of vowelless G-Ds and a Y-H-W-H [and some other stuff that I can't remember].)

Yes, but God did ask for a human sacrifice, initially. I think FNF left out the end of the story because everyone knows how it ends anyway. It was part of what his whole posting was trying to point out: the God of the Old Testament was cruel and bizarre.

It wasn't until the '70s or the '80s when women were even empowered to stand up against abusive husbands. Even today, it is hard for some to break free. I think it's ridiculous to say there was any rise in domestic abuse in the '60 or '70s. I don't think I can prove it though, because NOBODY TALKED ABOUT DOMESTIC ABUSE BEFORE the 1960s. For centuries, men have used the bible as a justification for abusing their wives. Men and women alike have used the bible as justification for beating their children. It is only in this modern (or what preacherswife2u would call "sinister") era that this has idea has been debunked. And thank God (gods? goddess?) for that.

The 1950s was not all roses. Biblical times were even worse.

What kind of father would give his daughter to an abusive drunk? Maybe the same kind who would force his daughter to marry her rapist:

Why? I'm certainly glad that the laws don't apply today, but that doesn't make any difference to my arguments. The laws did apply at one time, and this defines the character of God. It has nothing to do with whether the laws apply or not.

PreachersWife2U says God is good and unchanging.

FNF says no, God of the bible (OT and NT, most people believe they are the same god) is cruel and unjust, and He changes all the time.

I'm with FNF on this one.

If God hasn't changed since the Old Testament, then I certainly don't want to worship Him.

As for the whole rape/seduction thing, rape is everywhere in the bible, especially the OT. I'm just too lazy to drag out all the quotes today. My opinion (because I don't Hebrew, Aramaic or Latin or Greek either): The line between rape and seduction is quite blurry anywhere in the Bible. Since women weren't supposed to have a will of their own in Biblical times, I don't think there was a huge distinction between rape and seduction.

If you don't mind me asking, why are you defending the Bible and its followers? Didn't you say you were Wiccan or Pagan somewhere else? (BTW, I'm glad you're back in Cellar.)

as noone has picked up this question I'll take a shot at it from my POV.


The way I understand the RCC teachings (Roman Catholic Church) It helps a great deal to 1) Be Catholic, 2) if not a Catholic at least to be a Christian (as in being a true believer of Jesus).

HOWEVER, neither of these two are mandatory requirements to getting through the pearly gates. (And of course, falling into one of those categories is not a free ticket either.) Getting into heaven involves being in a state of grace, and not being weighed down by any mortal sins and such.

I couldn't be sure, but I would think someone like Gandhi is a good candidate for Catholic heaven... And according to South Park, Saddam is up there too.

Well, you have my vote for Pope, but you should check out what the Vatican has to say on the subject at

DECLARATION "DOMINUS IESUS" ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

The high points are:

It appears that according to this statment, Ghandi does not get a 'get out of Hell' card.

The rest of the document discusses Catholocism in relation to other religions. Here the church declares itself the one true religion while not completely denouncing other faiths. The justification for this is:

This states that anything good found in other religions was inspired by Jesus. I guess this includes paganism, although Christ affecting a religion which predates his birth would have to be considered another miracle. Then again, I don't know enough about paganism to say how far back the 'writings' go.

The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's top dog around here".

Im not an expert in theology or advertising. However, if you've ever read anything about 'brand identity', you can see the issues they have to deal with. This is from a book description on Amazon.

Religion is an idea. It is one idea in a marketplace of ideas. Anything in a marketplace usually differentiates iteself from the otghers by branding. Almost anyone in the US has at least some mental picture about most of the religions in the US. A lot of these ideas might be slightly or completely wrong, but they still exist. We sort of know the difference between a Baptist, Buddhist, Catholic, and Jew. These labels have meanings to us. We probably do not know every type of Christian or Jew, or the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, but the rough outlines are there.

Heaven (or enlightenment) is the prize in many of the world's religions. It's the equivalent to the toy suprise inside a cereal box or the frequent flyer miles attached to a credit card. Noone can prove it exists, and everyone understands that those who are rewarded don't usually come back to show those still working towards those rewards (expect in certain instances always witnessed by someone else). In some cases, the desire for confirmation leads to sightings in the frost on a window, a knot in a tree stump, etc.

The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof. If anything, the fact that Jesus is a historical as well as religious figure, probably complicates things. Moses and Mohammed were prophets. While they occupy a special place in their religions histories, their followers never claimed divinity for them. Moses especially is even written in the Bible as a flawed character.

So, they're them, we're us, and we all have to get along and try to concentrate on our similarities and desire for a stable society. This does not, however, mean that Christianity, at least in the eyes of the Vatican, has to share it's heaven with non-Christians. In some way, this mirrors the 'restricted' country clubs and resorts in the first half of the 20th century in the U.S. The response to this by the Jewish men and women who were excluded was to build bigger and better clubs and resorts. It might be that in the same way I will not end up in the same heaven as the popes. Taking a look back at early papal history, I don't really mind this.

>> Well, you have my vote for Pope, but you should check out what
>> the Vatican has to say on the subject at


Thanks for your vote of confidence, but don't impeach the guy we have now just yet.

To quote his pointy hattedness himself JPII, from a 1990 encyclical [Redemptoris Missio]

>>>

The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it moust be concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have the opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church... For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accomodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

>>>

Okay to translate. Jesus died to save EVERYONE. Not just Catholics,
but EVERYONE (including those pesky fundamentalists that ring your
doorbell -though only God knows why :) ) Those that are not Catholic and are saved, have had it done so in a way that is not understood (the Pope calls it a mystery, so he don't know either). This covers a lot of ground, and it is essential that it does. Do you think a just born baby that dies of some medical complication goes to hell because it was not baptised? What about all those aboriginees that were living in Austrailia, or the native Americans that never saw the white man until centuries after Christ (aside from that stuff Joseph Smith wrote *cough*) ? The Church teaches they are somehow afforded the chance at salvation. How, only God knows, but He is fair, so they must have been afforded a chance.

Now, to look at the flip side, those who are not saved...
you quoted Dominus Iesus as follows...

>>>

“Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned”

>>>

This means if someone has explained to them the full Gospel with all its meaning and significance and they think about it, ponder its meaning, say to themselves "hey I understand this stuff, but NO, I reject this teaching as being false", "or "I believe in this God and I reject him" Then they are condemned... probably.

Yes even then there is an escape clause!

Those who preach the Gospel are only human, and they sometimes make mistakes (sometimes very big mistakes). Maybe what was preached to this person was true, but not the complete truth, or maybe the person did not fully understand what they were rejecting. So they might still have a chance.

So in the end, you can't be sure who is saved or not, it is really between God and the individual.


>> The rest of the document discusses Catholocism in relation to other >> religions. Here the church declares itself the one true religion while >> not completely denouncing other faiths.

That sounds accurate. :)


>> This states that anything good found in other religions was inspired
>> by Jesus. I guess this includes paganism, although Christ affecting
>> a religion which predates his birth would have to be considered
>> another miracle. Then again, I don't know enough about paganism >> to say how far back the 'writings' go.

Think of Jesus as a savior of all people and all times. Those who were around BC got a dose of his Good Stuff retroactively (if you can swollow one miracle, why not swollow a dozen, hey miracles happen every day if you just look)


>>The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on
>>other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and
>>atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become
>>less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in >>a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and >>basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's >>top dog around here".

Well, the Catholic Church does believe itself to be in posession of the One True Path (tm) That has always been an up front fact even before Dominus Iesus. It doesn't try to beat other religions over the head with that knowledge (well it used to but let's not go into that right now :( )
But at the same time the Church believes that its truths are self evident, and that all truths point to the one Truth.

But which of the following would you prefer...

avoiding differences as if they were of no consequence
or
engaging differences in a respectful conversation

The Church teaches that all religions should gather together in peaceful discussion of their beliefs. The truth will float to the top by itself.

All that dogma the Church teaches is not going to be changed for multiculturalism or for anyone. And just because a person says "hey, I believe I am right", does not mean they say "I am right and you are not entitled to believe anything except what I tell you to." The Church believes strongly in the fact that everyone should have a freedom of religion (No? yes! it does!).



I have to go to class this afternoon, but I have more of your post to comment on

:D

Hi again,


rereading my earlier post, I said the following...

>>>
Think of Jesus as a savior of all people and all times. Those who were around BC got a dose of his Good Stuff retroactively
>>>

Thinking it over, I'm not sure if I can affirm this or not. I'm a little confused about the Before Christ / After Christ significance. If anyone really is interested I guess I could find out more info from somewhere.
Maybe someone else around here knows...

But moving along...

richlevy said...

>>>
The Vatican has a problem in that, if they come down too hard on other religions, people go around committing hate crimes and atrocities. If they are too accomodating and inclusive, they become less unique and run the risk of losing their identity and message in a sea of multiculturalism. This document was written in 2000 and basically says "we're going to play nice, but let's not forget who's top dog around here".
>>>

The goal of the Vatican is to evangelize the world, aka spread the Good News. I agree that if this is done 'heavy handed' then it is counterproductive. Take the Jehova's Witnesses for example. They are a very heavy handed in the way they spread their 'good news', and I think it is very counterproductive as it makes them look bad in the eyes of other religious people who disagree with them.

I'm not sure what you mean by accomodating and inclusive, maybe you can explain more.


>>>
However, if you've ever read anything about 'brand identity', you can see the issues they have to deal with.
quote:From an interactive website to a business card, a brand must be recognizable, differentiated and help build customer loyalty.
>>>

I think I can see what you mean, but when you look at every religion closely, you will see their uniquenesses and similarities- you have to research or ask.

I think you are comparing evangelization and business marketing. Yes, there are similarities, but I would say the stakes are pretty high when it comes to shopping for a religion.

To take your analogy, someone who is trying to sell their religion better know what they are selling (or else the buyer should be entitled to a refund!) Sadly, many people don't know their own religion very well, let along other people's beliefs.


>>>
Religion is an idea. It is one idea in a marketplace of ideas.
Anything in a marketplace usually differentiates iteself from the others by branding.
>>>

Can I take an example. Let's look at evolution. The idea of evolution came about with Darwin. Did he decide to market a new brand of idea when he proposed that less evolved animals over millions of years changed and evolved?

Did the person who built on that idea and showed that the engine that powers evolution is in fact these little things called genes decide to break off and form a new sect with this new idea?

These people tossed their ideas out into the world with the evidence they had, and then let people either accept what they said, or reject it.

And then we come to the question of truth. Yes, these folks happen to be preaching something pretty funky with their double helixes and man from monkies ideas, and yes there are alternative ideas that one can choose to believe in place of evolution, but does what one believe
change the truth of evolution? Cut and paste this concept to the discussion of religious truths.

Shopping for religious ideas is looking for a truth to believe in. The fact that there are many different truths being advertised does not change the fact that some are truer than others, and there is one out there that is TRUE.

Hey in all honesty, maybe they are all wrong, but that's not what the RCC teaches, and its not what I try to believe (and that is the word- try - its not always easy)


>>>
Heaven (or enlightenment) is the prize in many of the world's religions. It's the equivalent to the toy suprise inside a cereal box or the frequent flyer miles attached to a credit card. Noone can prove it exists, and everyone understands that those who are rewarded don't usually come back to show those still working towards those rewards (expect in certain instances always witnessed by someone else). In some cases, the desire for confirmation leads to sightings in the frost on a window, a knot in a tree stump, etc.
>>>

I don't have time to post why right now, but I don't agree with the main idea of the above.

>>>
The interesting area in all of this is the effort to treat religion as a science. Religious science is an oxymoron. Religion is based on faith, which is the existence of belief without proof.
>>>

Not quite... I would say that yes, you need faith to believe in any religion. Yes, the proofs used in science can't completely be used to prove ane religion. But I'll tell you this, facts can disprove a religion!
If there was a religion out there that preached that the sun was a giant plush orangutan, I would call any follower of that religion a bona fide looney. On the other hand, I wouldn't call a Buddhist or a Moslim a looney. I might disagree with them, but I wouldn't think they are off their rocker.

There are folks out there that keep preaching the end of the world, and they set a date and time. Some people believe them, and follow their prophet... until the day comes... and the sun goes up and down, and everything is as it always was. These folks just had their religious belief pulled out from under them through rock solid facts.

Then there are those that believe in something despite rock soild facts. Folks that don't believe in evolution, or folks that peg the beginning of the universe at around 6000 BC. These guys all seem to be ignoring a mountain of scientific facts that prove they are wrong.

A true religion is not contradicted by scientific fact.

____

okay folks, fire away


:biggrin:

thread hijack
 

I just started to look back on this thread (something I should have done a little better before), and I realize that my whole spiel started from a comment made from someone that I think was off topic.

So I apologize if all my posting came off as a thread hijack.

Hello?:confused:

Hi.

Hey you two, whats up?

Those that believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible usually also believe that evolution is wrong.


Yum! two great tastes that taste great together.

Onyx, I have to ask you, how do you think humankind came along?

I realise these are not your thoughts, but I'd like to comment. First, we are still evolving, but much less quickly with the advent of civilization. With the current travel abilities, even the minor population differences that had started to happen (race, etc) has been disrupted.

The missing link argument is silly ( apologies to your dad ). You and your 5th cousins exist, but your great-great-great-great-grandmother isn't around anymore.

Any scientist who discounts evidence isn't worth the name. But the problem is that many creationists love to create "evidence" that can convince the uneducated, but doesn't stand up to scientific investigation.

      Ya know, as far as the origin of the species goes, it's the theory of evolution, not the law or fact of it. Science doesn't claim it as fact just as highly probabl... Screw it. I give up. Creationists have decided to take on faith that they know what scientists believe. How could they be wrong?
      Oh yeah, I know it wasn't you that said it OC, just an old pet peeve of mine.

That's like saying the earth going around the sun is theory or rocks that are dropped fall towards the ground is theory. Yes, scientist trust the 'theory' of evolution that much.

No fact known goes against evolution, gravity, or heliocentrism. And all facts know fully support each one.

Great article juju, this should be mandatory reading for all who claim to be against evolution