Religion ?

Holy Cow, you guys are coming up with a lot of good information!!!

Gus, I hope that you don't mind that I used the above quote at my forum.

Used Here

 

Re: Re: Thanks Bill

Because that's why the "Off-Topic Discussions" forum was created--so folks could have discussions here that have absolutely nothing to do with education or a particular degree program.


Cheers,

 

Hi, Me Again.

Your board looks really good. You obviously put a lot of work into it, and I hope that it succeeds.

To the rest of you theologians, check out Me Again's forum. I'm not trying to run anyone off, I'm just suggesting that you might like what Me Again has done.

 

Hey guys, can't we just all get along?

 

Sell some pop-up ads and banners to all the usual suspect schools and make some coin.

 

This is a fair question but unfortunately, nobody knows the answer. Jesus Christ (The Gospel According to St. John) said " I am the way, the truth and the light. Nobody goes to my father (God) except by me". Jesus also said in the same Gospel that he has other sheep that are being reared by other shepherds. Could that mean people of other faiths? I don't know the answer but I have to say that God (if you believe in the existence of God) will be ultimate judge.

Bottom line: Nobody knows the answer to your question.

Ike Okonkwo
(Still trying to understand the meaning of "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" John 3:3)

 

Although the question is no longer entirely relevant to me, the little Christian in my head seconds Ike.

C.S. Lewis' answer to your question was that there's just no way of knowing what happens to people of other faiths. Unofficially, he had a theory that he borrowed from novelist Charles Williams.

If you look at The Last Battle (in the Chronicles of Narnia), it is stated that anyone who made an impure oath with Aslan was really serving Tash, and anyone who made a well-meaning and compassionate oath with Tash was really serving Aslan. This was the implicit Narnian soteriology.

This was borrowed from Williams' War in Heaven, in which a group of bloodthirsty persons seek the Holy Grail in the name of God. They eventually discover that they were working for Satan and only calling him God.

I think if we look at the way Christianity has been represented in different languages and different cultures, we'll find that there is no one pronunciation for the word "Jesus" and no one explicit understanding of who he was. Back when I was a semi-orthodox Christian, my attitude was that, with apologies to Francis Bacon, salvation through Christ is not achieved through the tongue of man, but through the heart.


Cheers,

 

Analyzing Religion

"me again" thinks to himself:

• "Now if I could just get Tom to post that cogent analysis at TheologyReview.com."
  
  < scratches head >

 

Where did you say that? Surely you jest. In an earlier post in this thread you accused me of “expressing your nonChristian or anti Christian sentiments.”


For someone who professes to cherish and excel at exegesis you seem incapable of understanding what you yourself write. You profess to be a Christian and you blatantly accuse me of being a non-Christian or anti-Christian. Yet, you have difficulty understanding how someone could interpret that as you being a bigger or better Christian than him or her?

------

Bill responds:

No I don't jest. Is it Christian to agree with what Christ said? Or can a Christian believe anything and remain Christian ? Where does Christ say that one's religion is the effect of chance? If it is only that then does God have no part in what one believes?

If I quote "All Mormons go to Hell" (Anti CultCreed), and do not qualify it, then one has the right to suppose that is my belief. Unless I'm joking , and then I should take pains to make that clear. Here , of course, I am not saying that.

In the thread on ordination you repeatedly cited philosophers which express non Biblical views. You did here again. If you say these are Biblical then prove it. What you wish to do is be at liberty to say things and not be held accountable. You wish wish to hold me responsible even for the implications of something I may say, but you attempt to slip out of all responsibility.



---


No, I didn’t suggest it, so I need no grounds. Please reread (this time for meaning) the rhetorical question I asked, and the sentence that followed it , as they are directly related. Please stop quoting me out of context and insisting that your inferences are analogous to my intentions.


---

Bill says: Yes you did suggest it. You wish to be exonerated now by claiming something is said tongue in cheek or was just rhetorical. But the context clearly shows your meaning.

---

Also, please show me where I explicitly stated that anyone in the ordination thread said that if others don't agree with his religious beliefs then those will burn in hell. I never did.

---

Bill says: You wrote in this thread, "Then come the attacks, 'My theology is bigger than yours and you will burn in hell because you don't believe as I do.' " If no one said this , then why did you write it? If such attacks came, then show where. Talk about living with implications!

---

But if you need proof of the underlying implications of many of these discussions, answer the following questions truthfully. Will there be nonbelievers and those who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior next you in Heaven? Can you really call it Heaven if this were to be so? I’m just asking. In your opinion, what do the scriptures say? [/B][/QUOTE]

---

Bill says: Of course there are underlying implications and conclusions which could be drawn to the theology and philosophy as well expressed here. If it is said that one's religion is an accident then the Scriptural representations of Moses and the prophets and Jesus and the apostles are all lies are they not? So why am I not playing the martyr here as you are?

I could attack Tom Head's unitarianism because if it is right then I am wrong. But I don't. I could attack Tony P s Mormonism because if he is right then I am wrong. I could attack Unk's amillerarianism but I don't. But if someone says it is Scriptural to believe that the religion one has is but chance, then I'd see the Scriptural evidence of that.


Yet, to answer the question you seem to desperately wish the answer for, if I believe John 14:6 , which I do, then my personal conviction is that no one comes to God except through Jesus. But my point is I don't use degreeinfo to say to others they are going to go to Hell. I don't say to Rich or Bill D or Tom or anyone that his philosophy is wrong. I may say something is not Biblical.

So if you wish to condemn me because of the *implications* of my beliefs then here's your chance. I'm just not as slippery as you are!

 

TheologyReview.com has two unique rooms:

• The Grudge Wrestling room is for members who have an ongoing feud. They are allowed to "duke it out" to their hearts content. Others may join in the melee, if they wish.
  
• Then we have a Boxing Ring that only allows two participants at a time. They generally argue for or against a thesis. They agree what the argument will be about and they agree to the fight.

Tantalizing, isn't it?

 

But my question was not whether only Christians (however each individual defines that) are allowed into Heaven or whether nonbelievers or those of other faiths are excluded. My question was whether Bill Grover (supported, I’m sure, by his exegetical efforts) believes that nonbelievers and those of other faiths are excluded from Heaven. My second question was if they are not allowed into Heaven, what does he (Bill) believe Scriptures say happens to them after death.

As such, someone does know the answer to my question, Bill. He professes to enjoy theological and religious discussion, and he believes in Scripture's authority over belief and practice. This is his bailiwick and he should be able to answer such simple questions. (Such as what is Paul really saying in GAL 1:8 and GAL 1:9?)

Personally, I am not troubled by what happens after death. Been there, done that.

 

Gus

You're not Bills mom.

You're the humourless guy.

 

You asked me to show you where you were implying that you were a bigger and better Christian than me and I did just that. Can a Christian believe anything and remain Christian? No. Can a Christian believe differently from you and still be a Christian? Yes.

I am not, however, following, your logic. Does Christ have to have stated something in order for it to be true?

You are now trying to paint me with a very broad brush. Moreover, I don’t have to qualify anything. I believe Santayana’s statement to be true. A person’s religion is largely a product of accident, analogous to the fact that you speak English because you were born in America.

Here we go again. This is what I mean when I say you are intellectually dishonest. I never said that anyone I quoted was “Biblical.” Therefore, I don’t feel I have to proven anything. Moreover, I was not aware that it was a requirement to post on this forum quotations from only sources you consider to be “Biblical.” Has it gotten to the point that we can’t opine on any subject without citing the Bible? Is that to be our only source? This illustrates the point I was trying to make about how the discussions on this forum are getting totally out of hand.

I am totally and unconditionally accountable for everything I say. I wasn’t aware, however, that I was accountable to you. Moreover, I am willing to provide corroborations and evidenced for any facts I share or opinions I express. What I do not do, however, is hide behind fallacious or circuitous logic.

You are allowing you feelings to cloud your judgment. My comments were in response to someone’s allegation that it was “socially acceptable for anyone and everyone to suggest that Christians should be restrained from discussing religion in secular settings”. My point was that Christians are not being persecuted on this forum and should not be treated any differently than any other interest group that would impede civil discourse on this forum. You asked for evidence that Christians were being treated differently (the implication was that I was anti-Christian). There isn’t any evidence, Bill, but only because no other group has behaved in such a manner.

As you seem to have acquired the bad habit of dishonestly misquoting me to suit your purposes, let me repost exactly what I said.

• 
  “In other words, what could have been an interesting discussion of ordination standards, or constitutional guarantees, degenerated rapidly into a free for all with the by now familiar theme: My theology is bigger and better than yours (and did I mention that you will burn in hell for all eternity because you don’t believe as I do?).

Do you see the word theme? Did you notice the parenthesis? Do you read anywhere that I explicitly attributed these statement to any one post or individual? Are you sure exegesis is your cup of tea?

Who’s playing the matyr? (Oh, sorry. That was just another veiled ad hominem attack wasn’t it?) By what fantastic leap of logic do you deduce that if one's religion is an accident of birth then the Scriptural representations of Moses and the prophets and Jesus and the apostles are all lies? I am glad, however, to see you admit that there are underlying implications and conclusions (theretofore denied), as that has been the problem I have had with these so-called theological discussions all along.

This is precisely my point; intellectual discussion is not a zero-sum game. But you don’t get it, do you, Bill.

Let me see if I can explain it. You don’t believe you are wrong; therefore, everyone else must be. As such, what does it matter what they say? This is not civil discourse or an intellectual discussion; it is as I have maintained all along: a game of theological one-upmanship.

I see. So you are diplomatically telling them they are all going to Hell. Or, are you simply holding them in silent contempt?

Another ad hominem attack? I don’t condemn you, Bill; condemnations are way above my pay grade. You have, however, proven everything I’ve had to say about the so-called theological discussions on this forum. Thanks.

 

This Beliefnet article by Orson Scott Card seems relevant to the discussion (his interpretation of the BJU controversy is slightly off, but his main point stands):
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/18/story_1816_1.html?frameset=1&storyID=&boardID=2221

Bill G. has already answered the question twice, and I can't understand the usefulness of trying to back him into a corner in hopes of making him say something intolerant; it comes across like a Monty Python skit.


Cheers,

 

Boys Boys Boys, calm down or else I'll send you to the Grudge Wrestling room ---> here <---

But you'd like that.

I need these educated responces at my religious forum. I want an educated insight into some of the hard questions that will be asked. For the most part, only those of you who are educated in Religion can offer this kind of insightful analysis.

I covet educated responces to religious questions.

I have no formal training or education in religion.

My education is in business & criminology.

But you guys not only know what Calvinism is, you've studied who Calvin was!!!

 

Familiar to all of us here at DegreeInfo.

The precise wording of the statement “my theology is bigger than yours” not only is descriptive of the cocksmanship game being played, it is also redolent with adolescent double entendres. The prepositional phrase “and did I mention” (in parentheses) indicates that what follows is either an aside (as also evidenced by the use of parentheses) or tongue in cheek (in case the "mine is bigger than yours" analogy was not sufficient).

Who’s disclaiming anything? According to the Open University’s The Effective Use of English Web page, “Parentheses are short pieces of additional information inserted into sentences that otherwise stand on their own without them.” Grammarbook.com states, “Use parentheses to enclose words or figures that clarify or for an aside.”

Did I, in your opinion, use the parentheses incorrectly, Bill? If so, I am sorry. The fact remains that my assessment of the so-called theological discussions is (by your own admission) correct. There is no real discussion taking place: it is simply a game of theological oneupmanship.

 

---

Bill replies: I do agree that the implications of some points made said IF voiced are not really suitable for this forum. Everyone would be anathematizing everyone else. I also would agree that it seems no one wishes to discuss religion on Bill D's terms. But I do not agree that , therefore, no real discussion can take place. Some of us are interested in discussing in some depth the meaning of the Scriptures or what you have termed obtuse doctrines. I'm sure the majority is not. But neither is everyone interested in computer technology.