Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deism in the Dock
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 31 of 270 (415373)
08-09-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-08-2007 8:13 PM


As the resident Deist ...
I have recently found myself flirting with aspects of deism. This has come as quite a shock.
Enjoy the journey.
If any of the following offends you, ...
Not a problem - it's hard not to offend people when you call them out on the logic of their position.
Essentially the question comes down to "is there a god of any kind or not?"
The atheist decides that there is not, in spite of this being a logically invalid conclusion.
The deist decides that there is, in spite of this being a logically invalid conclusion.
The agnostic makes no decision -- in essence concluding that the jury is still out on the question. This is the only logically valid conclusion (which should answer your question why they exist).
The theist decides that there is, in spite of this being a logically invalid conclusion, but they also feel they need to reinforce this by adopting a convenient religion, as this frees them from facing the fact it is a just a choice.
C’mon, what the fuck actually is deism?
It's a personal choice after evaluation of the alternatives and taking into account personal perspective.
Is deism at root just a belief in a glorified gOD of the ultimate gaps?
No because it is not concerned with any "gaps" in understanding, nor is it interested in justifying itself to others.
If you want someone arguing the gaps, try atheists when they assert that absence of evidence (gaps) is evidence of absence. Logically the best they can say is that in their opinion, and based on their understanding of the evidence that the evidence to date is not conclusive yet for a "god of any kind" conclusion. Logically that does not rule out the existence of one or more gods, especially any that are not interested in proving their existence.
It's a choice, and everyone makes a choice. Some are better than others, but all are personal choices.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 8:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Straggler, posted 08-10-2007 3:36 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 68 by Itachi Uchiha, posted 08-10-2007 11:05 PM RAZD has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 32 of 270 (415375)
08-09-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2007 6:56 PM


Re: The exclusive nature of religions
quote:
While I would agree that many of the eastern religions sort of borrowed from one another, the fact remains that if any of them teach a path of righteousness, or what have, while the other has a totally different view altogether, one or both are incorrect.
I think you're assuming a lot here. Are religions primarily about a "path of righteousness" ? Can the combining of religions be considered simply "borrowing" ? Where religions coexist to the point that people can and do honour two - or more - where is the exclusivity ?
quote:
As you said, Buddhists do not believe in deities, per say. But Hindu's believe in multiple deities. Both cannot both be right. They may be accepting and tolerant of different view points, but that does not negate the fact of exclusivity.
That ISN'T what I said. What I said is that Buddhism is not about gods. The core teachings of Buddhism are about the path to enlightenment - not about gods at all. Buddhists can believe in many gods or none or even one. Many elevate the Buddha to a god-like status, often above the gods. But they don't have to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2007 6:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 12:22 AM PaulK has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 33 of 270 (415376)
08-09-2007 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
08-09-2007 6:56 PM


Re: The exclusive nature of religions
NJ:
While I would agree that many of the eastern religions sort of borrowed from one another,
...like western religions...
the fact remains that if any of them teach a path of righteousness, or what have [you], while the other has a totally different view altogether, one or both are incorrect.
Totally different views like... what? Like this?
God is one. God is three.
Contradictory views. One or both must be incorrect.
As you said, Buddhists do not believe in deities, per say. But Hindu's believe in multiple deities. Both cannot both be right.
Both can. Much depends on what one understands by deity.
God is one. God is three.
All in the definition, you see.
God is one. God is three. God is ten thousand.
Works the same way, really.
They may be accepting and tolerant of different view points, but that does not negate the fact of exclusivity.
It's not 'accepting and tolerating.' It's holding more than one idea in your head at the same time--even when the propositions, understood in concrete terms, appear contradictory.
You should know how this works. Christians have been having it both ways for centuries.
God is one. God is three.
People are good. People are evil.
God is knowable. God is not knowable.
Faith is rational. Faith is not rational.
Mutually exclusive propositions all. For some reason, though, they don't get mutually excluded.
If Christians can do it, other people can do it. And they do. Why should this surprise you?
There is no 'fact of exclusivity' in religious ideas. It's bare assertion.
There can be attitudes of exclusivity among religious people. But that's a different thing.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-09-2007 6:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 12:12 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 270 (415377)
08-09-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-08-2007 8:13 PM


As a Christian Theist.
Look around you. Aren’t all those difficult theological questions about pain, death, suffering and evil much better answered by an uncaring and indifferent creator?
Not sure of that. It's an interesting debate subject, one I tried to a least partially address in this post.
The best evidence you have for God is the appearance of design and frankly there is nothing in that which suggests anything cares about you.
But I and many others see no evidence of design beyond the most basic, so that really doesn't seem applicable. There are some experiences many of us have had that lead us to see a personal and involved GOD, but if we are honest, we must admit that none of those will stand up to scientific rigor and that we could well be wrong.
The other thing to consider is that if GOD really does exist it will not be the Christian-Jewish-Muslim God or the Hindu God or the God of any other one religion.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 8:13 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4637 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 35 of 270 (415388)
08-09-2007 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
08-09-2007 2:35 PM


crashfrog writes:
As of 2007, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson, but there is indirect evidence for it.
mike the wiz writes:
Couldn't we say the same for God?
Chiroptera writes:
Well, they are doing experiments right now to try to detect signs of the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson is believed to exist because theories that explain things that we do see and detect predict that the Higgs boson should exist as well. These theories also give a precise description (or, at least, a limited range in its properties) so that people know what they are looking for and can agree if and when they find it.
If the Higgs boson is discovered, other people will repeat the experiments, and devise clever new ones, to confirm that the Higgs boson was observed.
If, after years of looking for the signs that the theories tell them to look for, scientists fail to see any sign of the Higgs boson, the theories will end up being modified and replaced, and it may even be that the new theories will no longer claim that there is a Higgs boson.
Could we say the same for God?



Nice post Chiroptera (as usual). Too bad Mike overlooked it. I'll make the appropriate substitutions and respond.
quote:
Well, Christians are doing experiments right now to try to detect signs of the God
Oh man. We are off to a bad start. Christians start with the God as a given, then try to mold their reality to fit.
quote:
The God is believed to exist because theories that explain things that we do see and detect predict that the God should exist as well.
Damn, missed again. Actually, the God is believed to exist because there is this book that says s/he exists. How do Christians know the book is not in error? Because the God wrote it, of course. The God is infallible. The book says so.
quote:
These theories also give a precise description (or, at least, a limited range in the God's properties) so that Christians know what they are looking for and can agree if and when they find the God.
Oh wow; that's just way too funny.
quote:
If the God is discovered, other Christians will repeat the experiments, and devise clever new ones, to confirm that the God was observed.
I don't think so. It just takes an image in a piece of toast to prove beyond all doubt that the God exists--not that they were really doubting though.
quote:
If, after years of looking for the signs that the theories tell them to look for, Christians fail to see any sign of the God, the theories will end up being modified and replaced, and it may even be that the new theories will no longer claim that there is a God.
Dream on.
There really seems to be little comparison between a scientist's search for the Higgs boson and a Christian's "search" for the God. I could have overlooked something though.
Cheers.
Small disclaimer: I realize this doesn't strictly apply to all Christians. I think it may be true for most though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 08-09-2007 2:35 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 270 (415398)
08-09-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
08-09-2007 6:43 PM


Re: as usual ... lack of understanding is yours
quote:
My question to deists is this: If you believe in God.... Why? I ask why because I can't seem to understand a logical or faithful one to do so. Deists will say that God cannot be seen, heard, or felt by special revelation. So cross that avenue of knowing God out.
Your failure to understand is your problem, not Deists.
I neither said or made allusions either way, which is why I asked a simple question. I appreciate your reply.
It should be enough that there are many Deists in the world to show that your personal perceptions on what are valid reasons to believe, and your personal problem with understanding Deists, is purely your problem.
Hypothetically, would your failure to grasp Christianity bear any reflection upon you by the same rationale?
I've posted to you before on this and you failed to learn from that experience too.
I'm not denying that we've discussed this before, but I can't remember asking you that question before.
quote:
How then have they surmised that a God exists then?
Because it is a personal choice - just as your faith is, I just chose not to delude myself about it.
Pardon the frankness, but it does sound as if you are deluding yourself if you are basing your belief upon belief itself. That is generally characterized as blind faith, which is, interestingly, slammed vehemently in most cases. I have an informed faith. There are very real reasons why I believe as I do. They weren't sort of whimsically formulated.
I mean, I commend you on exercising your rights to express your faith. I was simply wondering the reasons why deists believe as they do. I do find it interesting, though, that you and Percy share similar sentiments on why you believe as you do.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2007 6:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2007 12:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 270 (415402)
08-10-2007 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Archer Opteryx
08-09-2007 7:50 PM


Re: The exclusive nature of religions
quote:
While I would agree that many of the eastern religions sort of borrowed from one another
like western religions
Probably, given the nature of religion. But I can't be certain what constitutes [i]western religion[/b] (Shamanism, maybe?), being that all of the popular religions that reside in the west derive from the middle east.
quote:
the fact remains that if any of them teach a path of righteousness, or what have [you], while the other has a totally different view altogether, one or both are incorrect.
Totally different views like... what? Like this?
God is one. God is three.
Sure, if that's what it was espousing. The Trinity, of course, is nothing like that. God is one. The one God has triune characteristics composing of a singular God.
Ice, water, vapor.... Three different characteristics for the same thing... H2O.
quote:
As you said, Buddhists do not believe in deities, per say. But Hindu's believe in multiple deities. Both cannot both be right.
Both can. Much depends on what one understands by deity.
No gods, many gods. That's a contradiction that either will cancel one or both out.
It's not 'accepting and tolerating.' It's holding more than one idea in your head at the same time--even when the propositions, understood in concrete terms, appear contradictory.
Can you be a Hindu Christian with any cogency?
God is one. God is three.
God is one, with three characteristics. I assume you are more than one dimensional too.
People are good. People are evil.
People are capable of good and evil, not that they are solely defined as either or. Its light, its dark. Its up, its down. Obviously in different times both can exist. They can't exist in the same time frame. They exist as a contrast, not as a similarity. You can't have one god, multiple gods anymore than you could be broke and rich at the same time. But you can be broke at one point in time and rich in the next.
God is knowable. God is not knowable.
God is knowable dependent on both what He is willing to reveal and based on one's openness to receive.
There is no 'fact of exclusivity' in religious ideas.
In keeping with the law of non-contradiction, there must be exclusivity in order to have any coherence in which to formulate an opinion one way or the other.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 7:50 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-10-2007 6:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 08-10-2007 12:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2007 10:49 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 38 of 270 (415404)
08-10-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-08-2007 8:13 PM


Straggler:
I would like to hear from anyone who can imagine that they are wrong.
I can imagine that I am wrong. Hi.
One should have a healthy fantasy life.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 8:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 08-11-2007 9:06 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 270 (415405)
08-10-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by PaulK
08-09-2007 7:35 PM


Re: The exclusive nature of religions
I think you're assuming a lot here. Are religions primarily about a "path of righteousness" ?
I was just using the search for righteousness as an example. Insert another trait common to most religions if you'd like. I was just illustrating a point.
Can the combining of religions be considered simply "borrowing" ? Where religions coexist to the point that people can and do honour two - or more - where is the exclusivity ?
You can merge all of the religions in the world and call yourself a Shintoist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim if you wanted. But it would just be meaningless gobbledegook if you did.
Think about it. Can you be a Muslim Hindu? Obviously not. Why? Because their foundational tenets differ radically to the point where they contradict each other.
Buddhism is not about gods. The core teachings of Buddhism are about the path to enlightenment - not about gods at all. Buddhists can believe in many gods or none or even one. Many elevate the Buddha to a god-like status, often above the gods. But they don't have to.
So the seven circles of hell found within Buddhist scripture is interchangeable with the one hell found in Christianity?
The point I am trying to make is one of coherence. You can't ascribe to a multiplicity of things with religion without also being inherently duplicitous to one side or the other.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2007 7:35 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2007 4:11 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 270 (415440)
08-10-2007 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2007 12:22 AM


Re: The exclusive nature of religions
quote:
I was just using the search for righteousness as an example. Insert another trait common to most religions if you'd like. I was just illustrating a point.
In that case you're begging the question. You're assuming that there must be some difference that requires exclusivity and then offering an "example".
quote:
You can merge all of the religions in the world and call yourself a Shintoist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim if you wanted. But it would just be meaningless gobbledegook if you did.
Think about it. Can you be a Muslim Hindu? Obviously not. Why? Because their foundational tenets differ radically to the point where they contradict each other.
Talk about missing the point. Hinduism IS an example of religions that have merged to the point where they are considered a single religion by most. If you say someone's a Hindu you ARE saying that they are a member of such a religion. And your example doesn't work as an example because Islam is exclusivist (and very intolerant of polytheism)- which is WHY there are such problems between Muslims and Hindus in the Indian subcontinent.
quote:
So the seven circles of hell found within Buddhist scripture is interchangeable with the one hell found in Christianity?
A Buddhist could believe in either or neither. It's not a core teaching.
quote:
The point I am trying to make is one of coherence. You can't ascribe to a multiplicity of things with religion without also being inherently duplicitous to one side or the other.
But your point misses the fact that all religions allow some variations in doctrine outside of core teachings. If the core teachings do not clash then it is possible to believe in two religions - or more. Without incoherence or duplicity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 12:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 12:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 41 of 270 (415445)
08-10-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-08-2007 8:13 PM


faith
To ”Rational’ Theists and Creationists (because you are both the same really)
Put you bibles/korans/torahs/etc/etc down for a second and think. Pretend your book of choice does not exist for just a moment if you can.
Take away your book and all you have left are arguments for deism!!!!
faith (yes, faith -- or maybe one of phat's sockpoppets, hard to tell) asked me drop a comment in this thread for her, that "you can't prove God except by the Book."
i don't think i agree, but then we never agreed on much. i think the book itself is as much a matter of faith as anything else. personally, i look at it as a very human guide -- many people telling you ways to know god. and you can't prove god at all.
Look around you. Aren’t all those difficult theological questions about pain, death, suffering and evil much better answered by an uncaring and indifferent creator?
not neccessarily. defending for a second the biblical ideas, pain and evil are often quite purposefully inflicted by god. sometimes for very good reasons -- sometimes not.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 8:13 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 42 of 270 (415448)
08-10-2007 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2007 12:12 AM


Re: The exclusive nature of religions
1.Everybody Does It
NJ:
But I can't be certain what constitutes "western religion" (Shamanism, maybe?), being that all of the popular religions that reside in the west derive from the middle east.
My point was that all religions borrow. I only spoke of 'western religions' because you spoke of 'eastern religions.' It's the terminology you were using.
If you don't like it, try more often to call respective religious traditions by their names--Shinto, Mahayana Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, religious Taoism, philosophical Taoism. Exercise the same care you would if you thought Christianity and shamanism might be needlessly confused with each other.
Back to the point. All religions borrow.
You accommodate borrowings and compromises all the time. Christianity borrows heavily from Judaism. Take away the borrowings and you've pretty much gutted the fish.
2. The Commutative Properties of One and Three
I mentioned two seemingly contradictory propositions:
God is one. God is three.
You responded:
Sure, if that's what it was espousing. The Trinity, of course, is nothing like that. God is one. The one God has triune characteristics composing of a singular God.
Ice, water, vapor.... Three different characteristics for the same thing... H2O.
Note that in presenting the propositions God is one/God is three I mentioned neither the Trinity nor Christianity.
If the Trinity doctrine is nothing like that, why did you think of it?
Thank you for illustrating my point. People find ways to accommodate seemingly contradictory propositions if they find both meaningful. Christians are no exception.
No gods, many gods. That's a contradiction that either will cancel one or both out.
Not necessarily. As I said, much depends on what one understands by god (deity).
By some definitions, both statements can be true.
It works much as you just showed us, with your 'three equals one' thing.
Speaking of which, you ignored the example I provided at this stage:
God is one. God is three. God is ten thousand.
Anyone who can reconcile the first two statements can accommodate the third.
You ignored this. It's a shame, really, because after reconciling one with three it should pose no trouble for you to rationalize 'ten thousand' if you wanted. It's just a matter of multiplying the plural nature of God after that. Instead of talking about H2O and three-dimensionality, you could talk about stars and galaxies or component parts in a motherboard or something.
3. Networks of Ideas
In religious propositions people often hold more than one idea in their heads at the same time--even when the propositions, understood in concrete terms, appear contradictory.
(I submit that for any belief system to become a major world religion, this has to be done.)
Can you be a Hindu Christian with any cogency?
Sure. People do all kinds of things.
As you have shown us. You went so far as to provide rationales for human beings being both good and evil and God being both knowable and unknowable. Seemingly contradictory propositions, again, that people find ways to reconcile.
In keeping with the law of non-contradiction, there must be exclusivity in order to have any coherence in which to formulate an opinion one way or the other.
Equivocation. Your 'fact of exclusivity' did not refer simply to a property of language, as you seem to say here. You used it to assert a property of religion whereby it is not possible for people rationally to accommodate multiple beliefs, including seemingly contradictory ideas, within a single belief system. Go back and look.
It is indeed possible. People do it every day. You do it every day.
This 'fact of exclusivity' does not exist in the real world.
Attitudes of exclusivity do. But that's a different thing.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 2:13 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 270 (415487)
08-10-2007 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2007 12:12 AM


Be careful of unintended heresy!
Hi, nj.
The Trinity, of course, is nothing like that. God is one. The one God has triune characteristics composing of a singular God.
Ice, water, vapor.... Three different characteristics for the same thing... H2O.
Actually, what you are describing sounds like a heresy called modalism. It has traditionally been considered heretical, and, as far as I know, none of the traditional Christian denominations accept it.
Of course, it has been my experience that most Christians that I know personally (including when I was a fundamentalist Baptist) don't really understand the doctrine of the Trinity, and end being modalists without realizing that it goes against the doctrines of their church.
But you might want to discuss this matter with someone in your denomination who has some theological training; you may be teaching something contrary to the doctrines of your church.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 12:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 08-10-2007 12:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 44 of 270 (415489)
08-10-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Chiroptera
08-10-2007 12:00 PM


Re: Be careful of unintended heresy!
But you might want to discuss this matter with someone in your denomination who has some theological training; you may be teaching something contrary to the doctrines of your church.
Unfortunately, in the vast realm called Christianity, there are a very large number of clergy that have no theological training, and an additional number that have only a very limited theological education. In fact, there are many Christians, even some posting here at EvC, who believe that clergy are created by impartation and that there is no need to know any theological facts or history.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 08-10-2007 12:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Chiroptera, posted 08-10-2007 1:35 PM jar has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 270 (415491)
08-10-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
08-10-2007 4:11 AM


Re: The exclusive nature of religions
You're assuming that there must be some difference that requires exclusivity and then offering an "example".
All I'm saying is that a religion may offer inclusive ideals as part of the package deal, but as one goes deeper into both religions, the incompatibility becomes more clear.
For instance, the whole debacle with Tom Cruise and his Scientology. Tom tells his wife that she can still be a Catholic while also being a Scientologist.
But how is that really going to work, when Jesus that He is the Way and no other, and Hubbard says that all other religious ideas are the product of body-thetans which make people believe in religious figures?
The two religions have irreconcilable differences.
Hinduism IS an example of religions that have merged to the point where they are considered a single religion by most. If you say someone's a Hindu you ARE saying that they are a member of such a religion. And your example doesn't work as an example because Islam is exclusivist (and very intolerant of polytheism)- which is WHY there are such problems between Muslims and Hindus in the Indian subcontinent.
You completely avoided answering anything I actually said or asked. You have asserted that polytheism and monotheism really don't present a problem. I am very simply saying that religions, whether they outright say it or not, teach exclusivity because they have to in order to remain coherent.
quote:
So the seven circles of hell found within Buddhist scripture is interchangeable with the one hell found in Christianity?
A Buddhist could believe in either or neither. It's not a core teaching.
Then what is the purpose for the sage to have mentioned it? Teachings like New Age and Baha'i like to glean from every religions aspects that it likes, while discarding others, and erecting a religion on the fly. They don't teach exclusivity, but it ends up being exclusive because it is not compatible with other religions.
People generally take well to the idea of pluralism, but its only a matter of time before the disagreements are insurmountable to champion in the irrational belief that religions are fundamentally the same, and therefore are compatible.
If the core teachings do not clash then it is possible to believe in two religions - or more. Without incoherence or duplicity.
What do you identify as being the core teaching that runs a thread through all religions?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2007 4:11 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 08-10-2007 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 49 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-10-2007 2:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024