1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIf you're a non-christian theist (like Judaism, perhaps), which of the above two positions would be most to your advantage if it turned out to be true?
If intent on staying with one's position, i.e., non-Christian theist, it would be more advantageous to have the atheist view-point be true.
If, however, one is intent on perpetuating one's soul in a more favorable environment, one is better served taking the 'chance' that Christ was Who He said He was.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageKirksey calls for thoughts, rather than arguments, in response to his perceptions.
I've already responded to one of your posts.
Kirksey calls for thoughts, rather than arguments, in response to his perceptions. Well, first, I think that he was hoping for a response from Jewish users, which he failed to get. Clearly, they don't visit this forum, or don't post, or something.
Regarding your conundrum--I guess you made the assumpt ...[text shortened]... agree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it".
An argument is a thought backed by reasoning and/or evidence.
Regarding your conundrum--I guess you made the assumption that one must pray to God to be a Jew; well, atheist, communist and fascist Jews exist; then there those like my friend of mine whom I spoke to the other day--she doesn't know the meaning behind Hanukkah, but will forever consider herself a Jew. So, your conundrum sounds hollow.
In the context of the kind of "thinking" that kirksey is referring to, it should be obvious we are not talking about the racial aspect of Jews - we are talking about the spiritual and cultural aspect (which is really the same thing - Jewish culture flows from the Jewish faith). Racially, atheists, fascists and communists may very well be Jews - but we are not talking about them here. From kirksey's comment on atheists "defending" the Jews, it is clear he is looking at the issue through a theological prism, not a racial one.
As such, my conundrum still stands.
From an atheist perspective (as I see it), another person's religious belief does not make them any more or less human or worthy of consideration; a believer is as likely as an atheist to be a fool.
First of all, let's not over-generalise "the atheist perspective". Communism was an atheist perspective, and in the communist view, a religious person was indeed less worthy of consideration.
Second, do you think it is any different in the theist perspective?
A quote from an atheist: "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it".
You may want to revisit your Voltaire; he was very much a theist (more precisely, a deist):
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111vol.html
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're being insufferably pompous just to goad me into an ad hominem, aren't you?
In the context of the kind of "thinking" that kirksey is referring to, it should be obvious we are not talking about the racial aspect of Jews - we are talking about the spiritual and cultural aspect (which is really the same thing - Jewish culture flows from the Jewish faith).
To your point below--that's your interpretation, to which you are welcome. Apologies to kirksey if I missed his "obvious" point.
You're right about one thing, professor--Voltaire probably wasn't an atheist--but chances are he'd be with rwingett in this conversation:
Whatever uncertainty there may be as to whether Voltaire was a deist or an atheist, Paul Edwards writes: "what is certain is that he opposed Christianity throughout his adult life and came to regard it as a major aberration of the human mind, as well as a terrible disaster for the human race." And Alfred W. Benn remarks: "If [Voltaire] did not succeed in destroying Christianity, he did more towards turning it into a religion of humanity than any other man has ever done or can ever hope to do."
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt doesn't matter whether they know "all" the tenets of Catholicism or not; they simply need to hold to the most basic ones you'll find in any penny Catechism. If they do not hold to even that, then you can be sure that any notion that Christians are the only ones who will go to heaven is one of the first doctrines to be dropped (unless they turn to Fundamentalism).
about 1.3bn are Catholics and Orthodox - and they do not hold to sola fide.
Assuming, of course that those counted by the same, hold to every doctrine found within. In my small sphere of influence, there are but a few Catholics who know (let alone understand) all of the tenets of their denomination. I'd dare say you could multiply my experien ...[text shortened]... ic as being versed and therefore believing all the Catholic church accepts, is quite a stretch.[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettThread 24204
Is faith necessary for salvation?
Is faith sufficient for salvation?
Since you disagree with my statement, then why don't you tell us exactly what the Catholic church's position is?
See my post on page 6. Note that "faith" does not refer simply to "faith in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour" (though that is best) - it just means an acceptance of God in whatever form He has best made Himself known to you.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFor what? To be considered a baseline Catholic or for salvation?
they simply need to hold to the most basic ones you'll find in any penny Catechism.
For what? To be considered a baseline Catholic or for salvation?
(unless they turn to Fundamentalism)
Fundamentalism, in any field, is the gateway to fascism.[/b]
In the context of this thread, the former.
Fundamentalism, in any field, is the gateway to fascism.
Christian Fundamentalism is a specific movement in Protestant Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAnything But Christian. I see.
You're right about one thing, professor--Voltaire probably wasn't an atheist--but chances are he'd be with rwingett in this conversation:
Whatever uncertainty there may be as to whether Voltaire was a deist or an atheist, Paul Edwards writes: "what is certain is that he opposed Christianity throughout his adult life and came to regard it as a major aberration of the human mind, as well as a terrible disaster for the human race."
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Thread 24204
See my post on page 6. Note that "faith" does not refer simply to "faith in Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Saviour" (though that is best) - it just means an acceptance of God in whatever form He has best made Himself known to you.
The first two Commandments are:
1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I , the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commendments.
Are you saying that a Indian who worships the Hindu pantheon is actually worshipping the christian god? Are you claiming that this christian god would find that form of worship pleasing, despite his explicit ban on them? Are you claiming that all theists, regardless of their conception of god, are alright in the eyes of the Lord? You seem to be preaching Pantheism here, not christianity.
I find your post to be absolutely ludicrous.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettHere's an analogy that might explain it better: Mum has two sons, Jack and Bob. Both know that Mum likes flowers. Now, Jack is aware (because Mum has told him) that Mum is allergic to chrysanthemums and, therefore, only brings her other flowers. Bob is not aware of this and brings her chrysanthemums. Would Mum be completely displeased at Bob's gesture?
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
The first two Commandments are:
1. You shall have no other gods before me
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I , the LORD your God, am a jealous God, pu ...[text shortened]... be preaching Pantheism here, not christianity.
I find your post to be absolutely ludicrous.
Suppose Jack (who knows that Mum is allergic) deliberately brings her chrysanthemums; would Mum be pleased or displeased in this case?
The Ten Commandments are the purest expression of the natural law (Cf. CCC 2070-71) and revealed to us because, in our current state, we can easily misinterpret the natural law that is already known to us through the judgments of our conscience (C.f. CCC 1954 ff.). While some aspects of your Indian friend's worship may not be objectively pleasing to God, the worshipper's imputability for the matter may be nullified by his ignorance (C.f. CCC 1735). In addition, because he is responding to the basic tenet of the natural law ("Love God" ), some aspects of his worship will indeed be pleasing to God.
As I said before, I'm sorry to disappoint you - but the Catholic view of salvation is not what you think it is.
EDIT: And you may also want to look up "pantheism" in a dictionary!