Quote from: wulfgar;250602Hmmm, while people Christian and otherwise certainly do condemning of each other, I'd say the church's position is more one of evangelization then condemnation.  And actually, if you look at the Catholic Catechism, it's pretty interesting what it has to say about folks who grew up in darkest Africa for example and never heard the gospel.

What? That they must be converted (from what they believe in) in order to be "saved". Leading a good life is not enough? Leading a life where they respect their families, honor their elders and provide for their tribes are not enough? They must worship the same God as you do?

Again, not seeing much tolerance in Christianity. I have heard this variation, they are just confused/primitive and really worship Christ, they just do not know it.

Seriously, what does the catechism say?

Bill

Quote from: wulfgar;250606I'll have to see if I can track down a hardcopy of that book Jackalope.  I get a headache trying to read anything that long off the computer screen.

I hear that.

Quote from: One Horse Town;250285If i have to tell you, then we have nothing left to talk about.

Really? It seems more likely to me that I missed post of yours, or of someone else's, in the mass of replies that have been made. My having missed something - common event - seems much more likely than us having nothing else of which to speak! Please don't ascribe intent to my actions where inability is as likely or moreso.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250615What? That they must be converted (from what they believe in) in order to be "saved". Leading a good life is not enough? Leading a life where they respect their families, honor their elders and provide for their tribes are not enough? They must worship the same God as you do?

Again, not seeing much tolerance in Christianity. I have heard this variation, they are just confused/primitive and really worship Christ, they just do not know it.

Seriously, what does the catechism say?

Bill

That they are neither saved nor tormented. They are in one of the many intermediary states between absolute separation and absolute reconciliation of the soul and God. Limbo and Purgatory are two of the better known such states. Salvation is only possible through the church, but eternal torment is not the necessary outcome of not being "saved".

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;250980That they are neither saved nor tormented. They are in one of the many intermediary states between absolute separation and absolute reconciliation of the soul and God. Limbo and Purgatory are two of the better known such states. Salvation is only possible through the church, but eternal torment is not the necessary outcome of not being "saved".

I do not believe that is a universal Christian concept.

Bill

Quote from: Spike;250534If I may interject, as biblical history and linguistics are favorite hobbies of mine...

The original words used for 'day' in the Torah literally meant 'a span of time'... and were colloqually used to mean 'a day' by native speakers, but were not limited to that use.   Thus, when translations were made to promulgate 'The Book', one needed to pick a word to use, and the term 'Day' was an obvious choice.

What he said. Writing in Hebrew allows for as much precision as most other languages does, which is to say, final accuracy is generally not a goal. The ancient Hebrews were content to define pi as 3 in their writings - there's evidence from their architecture that they knew perfectly well it was a bit larger, but "3" did fine for their day-to-day purposes, so that's what they recorded. Day is used as an undefined period of time in more places than just Genesis (Daniel comes to mind). First born doesn't mean literally the first child born to a mother, either. There are a handful of these idiomatic terms that are well and clearly understood to have specific cultural meanings. Every language has idiomatic usage; Ancient Hebrew seems to have less than some, but that doesn't mean it has none.

It's only people who insist on applying the assumptions of modern English to a translation, that get into problems like 6x24 for creation, and so on. Biblical historians and scholars generally don't have these issues, because they know better.

Quote from: HinterWelt;250983I do not believe that is a universal Christian concept.

Bill

If you want universal Christian concepts, you're more or less stick with the Nicene creed, and I can find you Christians who have some issue even with that. The afterlife is NOT well defined in Christian writing or Christian theology; there is a lot we simply don't know. Catholic theologians have been, ah, inventive in some areas, where the primary text was silent.

Quote from: Ikrast;250992If you want universal Christian concepts, you're more or less stick with the Nicene creed, and I can find you Christians who have some issue even with that. The afterlife is NOT well defined in Christian writing or Christian theology; there is a lot we simply don't know. Catholic theologians have been, ah, inventive in some areas, where the primary text was silent.

Agreed. It is another aspect I have issue with for Christianity. However, if we start looking at individual sects of Christianity for the answers then we really have a mess and it makes discussions difficult.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;250983I do not believe that is a universal Christian concept.

Bill

It's not. It's the Catholic conception, which is what you asked Wulfgar about.

Quote from: HinterWelt;251016Agreed. It is another aspect I have issue with for Christianity. However, if we start looking at individual sects of Christianity for the answers then we really have a mess and it makes discussions difficult.

Bill

Just the opposite, actually. Talking about what "Christianity" is like is fraught with problems of over-generalisation. The correct scope for theology is usually the sect since it's the basic doctrinal division (with large, enduring sects like Catholicism it's sometimes useful to look at specific thinkers or movements within the sect).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;251032Just the opposite, actually. Talking about what "Christianity" is like is fraught with problems of over-generalisation. The correct scope for theology is usually the sect since it's the basic doctrinal division (with large, enduring sects like Catholicism it's sometimes useful to look at specific thinkers or movements within the sect).

No, that is exactly what I meant. If we start taking exceptions based on an individual sect, we can each site exceptions. Accepting Christ is a prerequisite. This cuts across any sect. Having a specific exception in an individual sect can be sited by anyone. I find that confusing to a discussion.

As to Catholicism, the last couple of posts I had thought had been more general. Perhaps I was mistaken. Certainly it started with Catholicism but I have since been referring to Christianity. My apologies to Wulfgar if I have misunderstood the drift of the thread.

Bill

Quote from: Jackalope;250186Then I would just point out that what you are calling God is a psychological tool that allows you to engage with internal creative processes.  That you experience personal growth by believing in a personal God is no more proof of God than Koltar's friend's experiences of personal growth through belief in a Klingon Warrior Ethic is proof of Klingons.

That's hardly a defense of religion or religious belief.  You may have found relief from your addictions by embracing a belief in god, but you are trading addiction for delusion.  If you were really over your addictions, if you were actually healed, you wouldn't need to believe in a supernatural entity.

You said: "I'm totally cool with people thinking I'm a self-deluding titan of willpower who needs to make idol masks of his personal assets in order to utilise them. I can never let myself fall into that belief again though, it damned nearly killed me a few years ago." which implies to me that if you were to allow yourself to believe that you disassociated your personal assets in order to utilize them, you would be in danger of killing yourself.

That sounds like a very troubling position to be in, where your life hangs on the acceptance of something you seem to understand is a made-up belief.  It would seem to me that a sign of further growth would be the ability to reclaim your intellectual facilities and put aside childish notions of make-believe.

I have no idea where you got the impression that I was defending religion or religious belief. That you insist on seeing my experience as "naive", "childish" and "troubling" is ok, I'm not looking to convince you or anyone else. My orginal point was in response to how you expressed yourself in post #92:

QuoteOriginally Posted by Jackalope  
There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

It's my contention that the self-construction of belief can be a powerful, life saving exercise. It was in my case.

QuoteThat they are neither saved nor tormented. They are in one of the many intermediary states between absolute separation and absolute reconciliation of the soul and God. Limbo and Purgatory are two of the better known such states. Salvation is only possible through the church, but eternal torment is not the necessary outcome of not being "saved".

Limbo isn't really taught anymore.  Purgatory is a stage of purification for some (If I'd guess I'd say the vast majority) of people going to heaven go through before getting to Heaven.  It's not a permanent destination.

I looked through my Catechism some last night but had trouble finding the exact passage I was looking for about this.  From memory, the Church teaches that we can trust in the mercifulness of God.  So it's quite likely that someone who has never been exposed to Christianity, will have the needed information revealed to them at the time of their death, which they may chose to accept or reject.  So people who have never been exposed to the faith are not all condemned to hell, but it's still important to go out an evangelize (for a number of reasons).  That's not the most articulate explanation, so my apologies if it's not clear enough, or I misrepresented the Church's position through my own ignorance.

Quote from: Drew;251075It's my contention that the self-construction of belief can be a powerful, life saving exercise. It was in my case.

For what it is worth Drew, your experiences are the kind of thing I respect and admire about faith. To me, faith and religion are two different but related things. In the end, if either aids you in getting through a hard time then it has served a good purpose.

Bill

Quote from: Drew;251075I have no idea where you got the impression that I was defending religion or religious belief. That you insist on seeing my experience as "naive", "childish" and "troubling" is ok, I'm not looking to convince you or anyone else. My orginal point was in response to how you expressed yourself in post #92:   There literally cannot be any point to a belief in an entity that you can't define in any meaningful way without resorting to making shit up.

Wulfgar was talking about an impersonal, objective God that is unknowable.  I was arguing that there is no point in believing in an objective, and unknowable God.  You objected, claiming that the belief in a "personal god" saved your life.  Thus, I naturally assumed you were defending religious beliefs, such as the belief in god.

I'm starting to gather that you took my comment out of context, and I did not realize you had done this.

QuoteIt's my contention that the self-construction of belief can be a powerful, life saving exercise.

Granted.  However, that is not a rebuttal of my point, which is that there is no reason to believe in an objective entity that can't be defined in any meaningful way.