This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Religion 4

Next 20 Messages
Kevin
User ID: 0053014 		Jan 11th 1:13 PM
Can you believe we are on the 4th thread?
Kevin
User ID: 0053014 		Jan 11th 1:17 PM
I'm not going to transfer the last several messages because they are quite long and we are pushing the limits of this board. Heres my next long post.

Ok Alex. I will wait for you.

Nikki, once again, I find myself frustrated with the limitations of this board. There is so little space to try to convey complicated thoughts.

Peter was the head of the original Christian church as described in the books of acts. Paul was an appostle to the gentiles. Therefore he was one of the main ones to get churches started in Macedonia, Greece, Rome. He was one of many/several that spread the word.

Now we get to the complicated thought that couldn't be expressed simply. I was summarizing what the christian view for Jesus' coming is, not what Jesus actually said when I made that statement. As I understand it (I'm a student as well) it goes like this (short version I hope):

Adam eats apple - bad man - now seperated from God.

God gives man rules (to make up for apple snafu) - If man follows perfectly then will no longer be seperated from God.

Man can't even follow the rules - God allows for animal sacrifices to cover (short term solution) for their sins (not following rules). These sacrifices were only intended till the long term solution was provided.

God provides the long term solution (Messiah) - As a man without sin he was killed and permanently took all of man's sins on himself. He acted as the perfect sacrifice unlike the animal sacrifices before him which were temporary.

Christian belief (why do you have to believe in Jesus). The sacrifice was made but if you don't accept that sacrifice then you aren't covered by it. Bad example coming: If someone buys you a big screen TV as a gift and you return the TV, you don't get to watch TV on a big screen - you have not accepted the gift.

The Christian view is that we are all failures in God's eyes. You yourself said it is a rare human that could follow all 613 rules. It is the Christian POV that there has only been 1 man - Jesus that has or will. Jesus never did say ignore the law. Christians don't (shouldn't) ignore the old testiment teachings but recognize that they are incapable of following all of them and accept God's gift.

As far as Messianic prophecy, I wasn't just refering to the virgin birth. There are many, many prophecies predicting the Messiah. Are you familiar with them? Does Jesus fit or not fit those prophecies?

Nikki
User ID: 0415304 		Jan 11th 1:28 PM
You're getting into the details of Christian theologies, with which I am not familiar at all. I mean, the viewpoint you're presenting is completely alien to anything I've ever heard. So I can't exactly form an appropriate rebuttal. (wishing I'd gone for that degree in theology now!) Hmm...pretty frustrating!
LindaElane
User ID: 0276214 		Jan 12th 0:05 AM
Kevin, that was a good example about the TV.

I would recommend careful consideration of responses to Trasmetallix. I believe he is having one on and laughing himself silly at us, or else he is on drugs. However, I am going to respond to him here.

Transmetallix, God loves you and does not want you to do any more drugs.

Heres a quote from you:
"LindaElane-No offense, but you don't seem to understand God's love. He said that he has given people a conscience that told them there was a God. God's love is not the mushy kind. God cannot sin. He cannot be around sin. This is why he threw Lucifer out of heaven. People who CHOOSE to reject God by sinning, will go to hell. I think that hell was originally created for demons and Satan, but when man first sinned they became in a sense, like the demons in that they were separated from God. "

My response: No human understands God's love, but at least I don't go around preaching to other sincere people about their failure to understand love. I never said God did not give us a conscience, I never said God's love was mushy, I never said God could sin. I never said he could be around sin. I never speculated on why He threw Lucifer out of heaven, I never said people who choose to reject him will avoid hell. (In fact I think people who reject God do not spend eternity in His presence.) In short your words to me have absolutely, positivly nothing to do with what I have said on this board and I did not enjoy the very broad brush with which you painted me.

Animal sacrifices? That stopped in 70 AD and that is not how Jews believe sins are dealt with. :::sigh::: But then I just can't believe you are for real, so why would it surprise me that you misrepresent other religions.

Yes, I know my response is not perfectly loving, but its a start. No reason why I should not express concern about the weirdness that it going on here.

I am not going to make further responses to you because, again, I find it hard to believe you are serious.
Transmetallix
User ID: 0087674 		Jan 12th 12:43 PM
Well, LindaElane, again I'm deeply offended by your latest message. I have never done any drugs in my life. I never said that ou said God could be around sin, or God's love was mushy, I'm just telling you what I said. I also never said that I could understand God's love. I am not laughing at you guys just because you have different opinions than I do. That woluld be stupid of me. Kind of like it was stupid of me to just misspell would. I hope the other members of this board do not share your sentiments LindaElane. Just because my opinion and your's are different, that does not mean that I am making this stuff up, or that I am on drugs. Can we try to have a rational discussion instead of insulting me? I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Alex
User ID: 0296604 		Jan 12th 1:05 PM
I am back! (*pauses, amazed by the general lack of cheers and greetings*)
Nikki - thank you very much for responding. I am sorry you could not answer my questions. Regardless, I have nothing but utmost respect for your beliefs. I would suggest, however, that you find some time and try to read about New Testament, and Christianity in general. I am not preaching by any means (nor can I, 'cause I do not believe in it, either) but it seems to me that some points were represented to you very incorrectly by your teachers. You will find it interesting, and, if anything, the fathers of Christian church did write some amazing books - you may disagree with them, sure, but if you like philosophy, or theology, they are worth reading, just for sheer brilliancy of their minds. I would recommend "Confessions" by St. Augustine, and "On The Incarnation" by St. Athanasius - very basic and easy to read.

Kevin, I am going to brush up on my Bible reading, before taking you on - you seem to be rather well versed, and will be tougher then Nikki, here. And, I must ad, unlike Judaism, I personaly do not find that many holes in the doctrine (I mean, of course the original Orthodox christian theology, not all those jokes like Jehovah witnesses, Moonists, etc.) - it is the implications and results that made me an unbeliever. Meanwhile, I would like to recommend you a book you may find intersting - written by Shusaku Endo (Jepanees Christian) it is called "Silence" and it is based upong the true events in 17 century AD, in Japan in the heat of persecution of local Christians. Very, very good, and written by a true believer and a very smart man and good writer. Shusaku Endo also wrote a novel called "Jesus" (or "Christ", do not remember) you will enjoy it, too.
Nikki
User ID: 0415304 		Jan 12th 1:09 PM
Alex - what do you mean "it is the implications and results that made me an unbeliever" ?
Kevin
User ID: 0053014 		Jan 12th 2:41 PM
I have for the most part tried to avoid using the bible for my arguments here. My reason for that? There are many different views represented here that simply do not accept the bible as valid and therefore reject any arguments based upon the bible. I only ventured there lately because I felt that the Christian beliefs were being misrepresented and therefore had to back up my statements from the ultimate source of our beliefs. I wasn't trying to preach honestly - only to explain.
Alex
User ID: 0296604 		Jan 12th 4:18 PM
Kevin, what do you mean, reject any arguments based upon the bible? I mean, Scriptures is the ultimate source of our (well, yours) beliefs, as you did state, so how is it possible to argue Christianity without it?

Nikki, I can not find anything wrong with the orthodix christian teaching (I mean the original theological aspects, as defined by the fathers of christian church, not the methods the church applied throughout last 1600 years, or current trends and popular movements). However, as I have quoted in the previous thread, there was one man who truly practiced christianity, and we offed him with extreme prejudice. Than we went and offed some 100 million people in 20 centure AD, alone, with even more extreme prejudice. Be he a man or part of Godhead, I am deeply convinced that Jesus' sucrifice had been for nought, despite what the teaching says. Hence, Christianity as a way to harmony (way to be saved,way to get to heaven, whatever) was really not a viable solution (but the best offered, I must ad). On a personal note, there is no divine power, as is in the Bible. I do not see a revelation in the Scriptures, in my eyes it is not "holly" (but great, however), and that is why I state I am an atheist, in that regard. I however think that there is a purpose in the existance of the bible - both old and new testaments.
Kevin
User ID: 0053014 		Jan 12th 4:49 PM
This board has not always focused on Christianity. We have covered the existance of a God, Catholocism, religion's affect on the world, along with many other topics. If I would have tried to argue the existance of God by quoting scripture, those that reject the validity of the bible would have rejected my premise and therefore my entire argument. There are many reasons that led me to a belief in God.

As the discussion has turned to specifics of Christianity, I have used scripture. When I did start to use scripture, Nikki who isn't well versed in scripture was unable to continue the discussion. The bible is the central truth in my life but that doesn't mean I have to utter words out of it everytime I get into a tight spot in an debate.

If you say you don't believe in God and I tell you that God does exists because the bible says that God created the world. You would come back and say that the bible is garbage because there is no God so therefore it can't be an inspired work. My response might be, "the bible is the ultimate truth". We are at an impasse. My only arguments are from the bible and you reject the bible. Might as well go home because no meaningfull conversation will happen at this point.

On the other hand, if you ask me why Christians believe in the forgiveness of sins, then it is valid to explain using scripture.
Kevin
User ID: 0053014 		Jan 12th 5:00 PM
Alex - So Christianity isn't valid because there is still killing in the world? Is the only way a belief in a greater power valid is if it brings about the end to all bad things in 2k years? We don't really know if it is the true path to heaven until after we die. You say that it is the most viable solution offered but I'm still confused as to the criterea being used.

I have read the bible two ways. I have studied i.e. looking for flaws, cross referencing, etc. and I have read it just listening with my heart. I have never had any revelations using this first method (although I did get come away with a feeling of respect like you've expressed). The deeper revelations have come using the second method. The only problem is is that you have to be open enough to honestly listen to what is being said to you.
KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Jan 12th 6:38 PM
Jeff;

A while ago, you said (I think) that we shouldn't judge a religion by it's followers.


I couldn't disagree more. :o)


What else constitutes a religion, but it's followers?

Religious scriptures? What are they, if no one believes in them? Mere historical oddities for historians to puzzle over.

A God? If such exist, they are things unto themselves. Religion is the _belief_ in them (and surrounding peculiarities as their will, actions, and histories about them, and whatever). It is perfectly plausible that a God can exist without it's creation really being aware of it.


What makes up a religion, though, is it's _believers_!
If I judge them, I judge their beliefs - in as much they have acted according to those beliefs.


Now, I guess what you (and many others) have a problem with, is that the term 'religion' is horribly abused.

Calling Christianity 'one' religion is pretty off base. It's a coverall term for religious people who share some, or many beliefs, but seldom all.

As an analogy; if I'm going to fix something, and tell my sister to fetch a _tool_, I have no call to bitch if she brings a hammer, even if I wanted a wrench.

Of course - this also suggests that someone telling they were 'Christian' would not really e telling me much at all. (I could make some qualified guesses, of course)
Only time would tell if this person had beliefs I could respect, or only tolerate, or not even that.
Nikki
User ID: 0415304 		Jan 13th 8:17 AM
Kah - When the statement that was made about not judging a religion by it's followers was made, we were discussing the pros and cons of the religion, not whether or not it worked. I suppose the point is to realize that mankind is VERY fallible, and we make mistakes and we misunderstand. But to take our errors as a representation of our respective religions is unfair in such a debate, because that assumes that our fallibility negates the intention of the religion. If you _believe_ in the religion, then yes, it IS defined by it's scriptures and God.
Alex
User ID: 9892733 		Jan 13th 9:49 AM
Kevin: we will get to criterias used in a bit. Do not expect much, as the most important criteria is one's heart, of course. After all, it is faith, we are talking about. And no, Christianity is not invalid due to the continuation of worlds atrocities. It is due to the absense of true christians, however. That, of course, will bring us to the nesessity of defining what true christians are (what is it to really practice christianity), what does it take to admit Jesus in one's heart (other than saying it, which as you'll agree means nothing in itself)- those criterias again. But before we go that route, let's establish something else, first

Kevin, why did we loose Paradise?
Jeff
User ID: 1536664 		Jan 13th 10:25 AM
"If I judge them, then I judge their beliefs..." Well then...

Suppose a guy who attends a baptist church murders someone. Does that mean that all baptists are murderers or that the baptist church promotes murder?

Or to take a less extreme case, let's say you have a catholic who opposes abortion. That catholic believes that opposition to abortion requires him to firebomb abortion clinics, and he does so. Of course, there are millions of catholics who oppose abortion but believe that firebombing clinics is incorrect and would never do so. So how do you judge "catholicism" as a religion?

I think this example reveals an internal contradiction in your position. Do we judge catholicism as a religion based upon the actions of a single firebomber or upon the actions of those who do not firebomb?

I don't think that either position is correct. We can only judge the actions of individuals who practice the religion, not the religion as a whole. That's why I object to broad criticisms of religion. The only exceptions to this would be a religion that had, as a fundamental, core belief, a morally wrong foundation. Say if you had a religion whose accepted, basic tenets required human sacrifice, for example.

So if you have an intolerant, bigoted Luteran, you simply have an intolerant, bigoted Lutheran. But you do not have a basis for assigning intolerance and bigotry to Lutheranism as a religion, which thereby would unjustly tag other tolerant, nonbigoted Lutherans as intolerant or bigoted.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 		Jan 14th 3:41 AM
Jeff;

What you point out, is exactly the same as I intended to show with my 'tool' example - I do not judge a 'Christianity as a whole', simply because it is a fallacious approach.

I cannot blame my sister for giving me the wrong tool, considering how I didn't specify which I wanted; neither can I blame 'Christianity' for suppression of women, simply because there are different views on women between different people calling themselves 'Christians'.

As such, I think calling Christianity _one_ religion is not very helpful - I'd call it a plethora of different belief sets, which share some common denominators. These belief sets is what I would call 'one religion'.

This allows for seeing through the veil people create when they call themselves 'Christians' (because they share some common denominator with them; like believing in Christ), if they, for instance, hunt down and kill homosexuals.

After all, even if the overwhelming majority of 'Christians' would not do that, one could argue for some pretext in the Bible for it (Note that I'm not 100% sure about this, but IIRC the Old Testament mentions something about 'men laying with men' being an 'abomination' and that they 'should die' and whatnot. Too bad I don't have a Bible handy...).



Nikki;

I'd say that a religion _revolves_ around a God (or whatever is the focal point of belief), but religion _exists_ because of humans. No humans, no religion. A God exists (one would think) _independently_ of whether or not people believe.

Hence definition of religion should start and end with humans.
As for religious scriptures, I guess I would agree if they are impossible to interpret in different ways - I know that isn't possible with Christianity and Islam, and I suspect that is correct for most other religions as well.
Kevin
User ID: 0053014 		Jan 14th 4:07 PM
Alex, I will have to beg off on the discussion for a bit. I recently received some rather shocking news. I honestly don't have strength to deal with that situation and debate with you about religion. Please be patient. I'm not trying to avoid you really.
Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 		Jan 14th 5:15 PM
I have to say, in the most reasonable way possible, Transmettallix, that I also have a problem with:

>>Obviously many of the people on this board are what the bible calls "carnal minded" people. Charles Phinney once said that "Trying to explain spiritual things to a carnal man is like trying to explain colors to a blind man."<<

Try it this way: 'Trying to explain _rational_ things to a _spiritual_ man is like trying to explain colours to a blind man'. That is not my opinion, just a reversal of what you were saying to try to illustrate why I have issues with your statement.

The analogy does not hold up at all, because the chances of a blind man gaining his vision through your explanation of colours is nil. Likewise, The blind man is extremely unlikely to be able to persuade you that colours do not exist. Unless you hold absolutely no room in your feelings for the possibility that you might be wrong, you cannot claim to be describing a universal thing such as colour.

I also find the statement rather patronising and condescending, as it implies that we, the blind/carnal are somehow impaired in our understanding of the world. I don't think that Christians, Jews, Whatever are impaired in their understanding of the world, I just think they're probably wrong.

If you have any respect for your own opinions and believe that they will stand up to argument, I would suggest that you explain your point of view rationally, and if you wish to try to persuade us that you are right, do so. Just saying that we will never understand isn't going to help anyone.

If you do insist on persisting with the above statement, could you please explain who is carnal-minded, why, and what is wrong with it?
Alex
User ID: 0296604 		Jan 14th 7:18 PM
Kevin, I sincerely hope that everything will work out, and you will regain your typical cheerful self that we'll came to know and love. Remember, what does not break you, makes you stronger...

Good luck!
DarthDarthBinks
User ID: 9976863 		Jan 15th 1:46 PM
Jeff,

You said, "The only exceptions to this would be a religion that had, as a fundamental, core belief, a morally wrong foundation. Say if you had a religion whose accepted, basic tenets required human sacrifice, for example."

Just to make a point, virtually all Christian denominations could be said to have this at the core of their belief. For example, Jesus is the lamb of God, whose sacrifice takes away the sins of the world. Assuming Jesus was human as well as divine, you have human sacrifice.

When spanish missionaries were preaching to the Aztecs, they understood Christ's death as similar to the blood sacrifices at their temple. Now I will readily admit that this might be stretching the bounds a little bit, but from your reasoning, Christianity as a whole can be dismissed on the basis of a "morally wrong foundation".

Well, I personally have no problem making broad criticisms of religion, as this post probably makes clear. Stating that one shouldn't make broad criticisms of religion doesn't make sense to me at all, especially as you formulate the idea. Could you explain that for me?
Next 20 Messages