Religion — Page 48

Wouldn't that be nice, hmm...? Now how might we elect you God, as your philosophy seems the more reasonable...?

Wait, what is your policy on a multi-faith Heaven?

DuracellEnergizer said:

Every sinner who has ever lived atones eventually -- every sinner.

 Even Justin Bieber?

DuracellEnergizer said:

Post Praetorian said:

Wait, what is your policy on a multi-faith Heaven?

There's only one faith. It just has many facets. =P

What is your policy on a multi-facet Heaven?

DuracellEnergizer said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Every sinner who has ever lived atones eventually -- every sinner.

 Even Justin Bieber?

The Ayatollah of Rock 'n' Rolla will show him the error of his ways. 

Fixed.

RicOlie_2 said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

If Hell is real and sinners do end up in it, they suffer only as long as they sinned, and their suffering is only as great as their sins. Since no one has committed infinite sins, no ones burns in Hell eternally.

Every sinner who has ever lived atones eventually -- every sinner.

 That sounds more or less like the Catholic concept of Purgatory, though those who reject God even once they've seen him do get stuck in Hell forever.

Some think that no one would reject God in this case, and that even if they did, they would change their mind eventually. I disagree, though I can't offer any evidence either way.

 ...seemingly it could be imagined in such an instance as my own...for the manifold God that might seek to embrace this traveler must needs have more than a few chords missing from the top notes of harmony...and unlikely would be the scenario in which such a welcome might be returned in any case...

...at least, not on equal terms...and, at least, not with equal vigor...and, certainly, not without at the very least a suspicion of turpitude...

I wonder...

For once, Philoso-Raptor blew my mind!

I think we keep making the mistake of seeing history through our 'enlightened' eyes and not the eyes of the past.

Take slavery, for instance. Slavery was around for thousands of years and actually made a lot of sense for those times because it was actually thought of as merciful compared to the alternative for nations that were not developed enough to stand against more powerful ones. I mean anyone who was not enslaved after their land was taken over would otherwise be killed right? So while we might wag our heads at the idea, it was an improvement over the previous killing solution.

Now the treatment of Native Americans is a bit of a sad story too, but if we look at it in context with what was happening it was really the first time one group of people from a completely different continent had ever come into a different land and even tried to accomodate one another. I mean think about it, when in history did a bunch of Romans, Greeks, or Mongolians ever come over in a big group to another land and say, "Hey guys would it be cool if we lived here?"

I mean especially with having really superior technology and such. Up to that point it was one empire against another in a big game of risk to see who would out-compete the other empire so the very idea that they even tried to come in peace and hang together and smoke the odd peace pipe was actually a lot of progress.

And because it was a new scene it was like anything else people have ever tried: prone to screw-ups. I mean think about how little misunderstanding it took to provoke a war. I read once about a tribe near the New England states that made friends with the local commander of the guerrison, but then he got sick and was replaced by a new guy from England. They had no Web back then so he had no idea who these guys were who were camped outside his fort. So when a different tribe from a bit up the river came by and stole some of the horses belonging to the army he naturally got confused about who did it and retaliated against the wrong tribe.

Stuff like that caused by completely different languages and customs led to a lot of stories of atrocities on both sides that were probably exaggerated. So nobody could really say one side was perfect and the other scum because everyone was after different things. Some would try their best for months only to have a misunderstanding undo it all in a minute.

But still it was progress and the fact that we feel bad about it is a sign that we've learned from our past. That's never a bad thing as long as we know when to stop taking the blame.

Trident said:

I think we keep making the mistake of seeing history through our 'enlightened' eyes and not the eyes of the past.

Take slavery, for instance. Slavery was around for thousands of years and actually made a lot of sense for those times because it was actually thought of as merciful compared to the alternative for nations that were not developed enough to stand against more powerful ones. I mean anyone who was not enslaved after their land was taken over would otherwise be killed right? So while we might wag our heads at the idea, it was an improvement over the previous killing solution.

Now the treatment of Native Americans is a bit of a sad story too, but if we look at it in context with what was happening it was really the first time one group of people from a completely different continent had ever come into a different land and even tried to accomodate one another. I mean think about it, when in history did a bunch of Romans, Greeks, or Mongolians ever come over in a big group to another land and say, "Hey guys would it be cool if we lived here?"

I mean especially with having really superior technology and such. Up to that point it was one empire against another in a big game of risk to see who would out-compete the other empire so the very idea that they even tried to come in peace and hang together and smoke the odd peace pipe was actually a lot of progress.

And because it was a new scene it was like anything else people have ever tried: prone to screw-ups. I mean think about how little misunderstanding it took to provoke a war. I read once about a tribe near the New England states that made friends with the local commander of the guerrison, but then he got sick and was replaced by a new guy from England. They had no Web back then so he had no idea who these guys were who were camped outside his fort. So when a different tribe from a bit up the river came by and stole some of the horses belonging to the army he naturally got confused about who did it and retaliated against the wrong tribe.

Stuff like that caused by completely different languages and customs led to a lot of stories of atrocities on both sides that were probably exaggerated. So nobody could really say one side was perfect and the other scum because everyone was after different things. Some would try their best for months only to have a misunderstanding undo it all in a minute.

But still it was progress and the fact that we feel bad about it is a sign that we've learned from our past. That's never a bad thing as long as we know when to stop taking the blame.

 It's amazing how wishful thinking and scientific/cultural ignorance harmed our race (and still does) but at least we have made some progress.

First of all, it is several years too early to ask these questions. I still live with my parents, I’ve never had a real girlfriend, I still don’t have a drivers license, etc.

That being said, for those of you who read my previous posts about my living situation, I have a question.

When (and if) I eventually marry and have kids, should I deny them access to my parents? I’m afraid some of their insanity (Dominionism, persecution complex; creationism; bigotry toward Muslims, LGTBQ people, and to a far lesser extent, black people [While they don’t support anything overt like slavery, they think that God made whites to be better]), especially that of my mom (anti-vaccinations; New Apostolic Reformation; seeing stuff like Pokemon, Mario, Sonic etc as satanic; traumatic exorcisms) would rub off on them. The fact that Mom sometimes says “You reap what you sow” concerning my future children whenever I act too “rebellious” does not help matters in the slightest. By her logic, she’s cursing my children, even if she doesn’t see it that way.

A related question. Though I may be sceptical of the Bible, I feel like it’s important that my future kids learn its contents, if only so they can understand the background of my family and make their own minds about its contents. I want my future kids to be critical thinkers, to have the right to have opinions that I might not agree with, but I know aren’t wrong. I want my kids to be able to be capable of making the right choices even without the fear of hell fire forcing them to obey. How do you suggest that I teach my kids the bible?

I think these are probably tough questions, and would really appreciate advise on them.

I forgot to complete my second question in my previous post.

I think teaching them the bible at college age is a little ridiculous. As for translations, I would probably put them in four categories. Classical (King James), Crosswire Friendly (NET bible, ESV, World English Bible, ASV, Apostolic Polyglot, LXX2012, RV, Catholic Public Domain Version etc.) (That being said, I might be removing some of the less accurate/less scholarly translations from that list), Crosswire Neutral (NASB) and Crosswire Hostile (NRSV, New JPS, Geneva with modern spelling)

The King James is important for understanding the English language.

Crosswire Friendly translations can be run on anything that supports the FLOSS Crosswire protocol, which has clients for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Windows Phone, Android, iOS, etc. Unfortunately some companies either ignore Crosswire ministries request for a translation to be ported to their platform or outright state that they refuse to license their product to open source technology. Also, it’s possible that the credentials of the World English Bible, LXX2012, and Catholic Public Domain Version are not scholarly enough.

The only translation listed as Crosswire Neutral is the NASB, which “planned” to release a version in crosswire format for a while not, but never had.

Crosswire Hostile translations comprise of both one classical translation made more readable by modern audiences (Geneva) and translations highly regarded for their scholarly status (NRSV, and the New JPS). Because of being Crosswire Hostile, though, I’m not sure I am willing to accept them.