think icon is painting with a very broad brush doc, I personally do not think my religion is the only way to GOD. How about you doc>?

I Beleive that there are a bunch of very good Hindus, Buddhists, and even some atheists in heaven. The atheists are not really happy, but the Hindus are extatic, and the Buddhists are still contemplating their navels!

The only religion currently very active in the west and thinking of itself as the only true religion is atheism.

That gets you a cookie!

If you argue that they are all equally true - which in our kinder, gentler way we are often inclined to do nowadays - then why follow any particular religion? It makes little sense to even bother to be, say, a christian, when Hinduism or Islam can get you to the same place.

There are certain core principals that my religion teaches me. Some are the ones that make me a Catholic. Others are universal. I beleive in them all. HOwever, those who believe in universal principals, just because they do not acknowledge the pope as the leadre, or Christ as the savior, are as devout as I. YOu ask a question and confuse the answer. My religion is right for me because I believe the core tenets. It is not right for Moderateman as he does not beleive all of them, but he does beleive the non Catholic ones. So he is as likely to get to heaven as I (probably more so in his case). I dont believe a just god would condemn billions of people to damnation because they did not have the opportunity to hear Jesus' words.

Extending that a little farther, I dont think he would condemn billions of people because they dont accept Jesus as they already have their own faith with their own core beliefs, the key ones being cross polinated.

We can both drive to cleveland, but we dont have to do it with the same car. But we will both get there in the end.

Reply By: sunwukongPosted: Saturday, October 22, 2005

Are you saying that the scientific advancements under Christianity's heyday (Renaissance or now?) have nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings it imposes?Keep in mind that a great deal of the modernization of logic from Aristotle's original framework was accomplished by Islamic scholars including the formalization of induction and the basis for the scientific method accepted and codified by Bacon. There are a heck of a lot of advances that couldn't have been made without those contributions.

I am afaid that I just cannot tie in scientific progress with a religious base. Science is science, even today most scientist DO NOT BELIEVE in God.

To advance that scientific progress is linked or due to religion is a false premiss.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Saturday, October 22, 2005think icon is painting with a very broad brush doc, I personally do not think my religion is the only way to GOD.How about you doc>?I Beleive that there are a bunch of very good Hindus, Buddhists, and even some atheists in heaven. The atheists are not really happy, but the Hindus are extatic, and the Buddhists are still contemplating their navels!

My personal belief is that good people of all stripes get into heaven, the evil ones do not. Simple huh?

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Saturday, October 22, 2005

Extending that a little farther, I dont think he would condemn billions of people because they dont accept Jesus as they already have their own faith with their own core beliefs, the key ones being cross polinated.We can both drive to cleveland, but we dont have to do it with the same car. But we will both get there in the end.

not just billions but billions of GOOD people.

not just billions but billions of GOOD people.

Before there was McDonald's, there is a God! If I make it to the end, I will look forward to seeing Iconoclast there as well. I will try to be a good christian and not do a "See, Told you so!".

#59 by Dr. Guy Saturday, October 22, 2005

not just billions but billions of GOOD people. Before there was McDonald's, there is a God! If I make it to the end, I will look forward to seeing Iconoclast there as well. I will try to be a good christian and not do a "See, Told you so!".

Is he gonna be suprised, jews, christians, buddist, hindu, islam, all side by side laughing at the folly of those still alive.

Is he gonna be suprised, jews, christians, buddist, hindu, islam, all side by side laughing at the folly of those still alive.

YOu seen that joke too? The bran muffin man? "I could have been here 10 years ago!"
LOL

#61 by Dr. Guy Saturday, October 22, 2005

Is he gonna be suprised, jews, christians, buddist, hindu, islam, all side by side laughing at the folly of those still alive. YOu seen that joke too? The bran muffin man? "I could have been here 10 years ago!" LOL

have NOT seen the joke in question, please remit so I can laugh.

I am afaid that I just cannot tie in scientific progress with a religious base. Science is science, even today most scientist DO NOT BELIEVE in God. To advance that scientific progress is linked or due to religion is a false premiss.

You need to read more history and philosophy of science. Certain views of the world that Christianity and Islam have that isn't shared by, say, Budhism, have allowed people entrenched in those ways of thinking (if not actually believers) to be able to break "out of the box" of conventional thought that blocked discoveries.

I'm not saying that being religious assists in scientific thought, but that the philosophical framework certain religions have can contrast enough with the conventional wisdom on a scientific problem that its adherents can see through the problem to the solution.

MM I am not a Christian and i do not believe in God but I totally agree with you. Screw the ACLU and activist judges. It doesn't bother me that my money says God on it. What do I care. Rock on brother. MAC

Christians have not forced anybody to agree with them for centuries. Yes, the problems in Yugoslavia were purely politically based. Oh, and the purges of native tribes in South America by settlers with support of both the military and the clergy was all about the perfect fruit. And the native residential schools in Canada was mostly about hockey.

My thoughts exactly.

Reply By: sunwukongPosted: Saturday, October 22, 2005I am afraid that I just cannot tie in scientific progress with a religious base. Science is science, even today most scientist DO NOT BELIEVE in God.To advance that scientific progress is linked or due to religion is a false premise.You need to read more history and philosophy of science. Certain views of the world that Christianity and Islam have that isn't shared by, say, Buddhism, have allowed people entrenched in those ways of thinking (if not actually believers) to be able to break "out of the box" of conventional thought that blocked discoveries.I'm not saying that being religious assists in scientific thought, but that the philosophical framework certain religions have can contrast enough with the conventional wisdom on a scientific problem that its adherents can see through the problem to the solution.

I still cannot see what one has to do with the other, your premise states because of religion, this and that was done, my premise is INSPITE of religion, this and that were done.

I have studied history BTW, most great inventions and gains have been made in time of WAR, so I can state now that if not for war most inventions would NOT have been discovered. Coincidence? hmmm

Reply By: whosyurdaddy?Posted: Saturday, October 22, 2005MM I am not a Christian and i do not believe in God but I totally agree with you. Screw the ACLU and activist judges. It doesn't bother me that my money says God on it. What do I care. Rock on brother. MAC

That for the most part goes along with my theory, I want to believe in GOD that's fine, you DO NOT want to believe in GOD that's fine by me too.

Reply By: dharmagrlPosted: Saturday, October 22, 2005Christians have not forced anybody to agree with them for centuries.Yes, the problems in Yugoslavia were purely politically based. Oh, and the purges of native tribes in South America by settlers with support of both the military and the clergy was all about the perfect fruit. And the native residential schools in Canada was mostly about hockey.My thoughts exactly.

my thoughts too, but I never said religion was perfect, nor am I an advocate of organized religion. But because I do not think organized religion is ok, that does not make it wrong, nor would me advocating the removal of ORGANIZED religion right.

YOu ask a question and confuse the answer. My religion is right for me because I believe the core tenets. It is not right for Moderateman as he does not beleive all of them, but he does beleive the non Catholic ones. So he is as likely to get to heaven as I (probably more so in his case).

Thanks for the comment, but I think you misunderstood me (my fault). In context I was trying to explain why those like HC and SPC who are quite clear that "there is only one way" are partially right, and those like you and I who see a lot of roads basically leading to the same place are also partially right.

HC and SPC are partially right because they are following a particular demanding path and doing so whole-heartedly. Psychologically that is difficult to do without believing that you've found the 'only answer' (as SPC very 'coherently' explained) - and once you've done that you'll want to share it with everybody.

You and I find it 'unreasonable' that one faith alone brings a person to 'salvation' and that all the followers of other religions are condemned to an eternity of hell. We then have to answer the question, why follow any particular religion if they are equally effective. (Personal taste or family upbringing is a 'reasonable' answer to the question).

My conclusion:

My own personal take is that this can only be answered by a logical paradox, to simultaneously believe that my religion is the best that there is - better than all the others (otherwise why bother with it?) - and to believe, with equal sincerity - that all the rest are just as good. Not easy.

is a possible answer.

Perhaps like Sunwukong you find my point of view "incoherent". Perhaps it is. But it at least explains (to me) why the 'exclusive path' and the 'many roads' approaches both continue to thrive, because they both reflect psychological truths of religious life.

#69 by Chakgogka Saturday, October 22, 2005

Perhaps like Sunwukong you find my point of view "incoherent". Perhaps it is. But it at least explains (to me) why the 'exclusive path' and the 'many roads' approaches both continue to thrive, because they both reflect psychological truths of religious life.

I find neither you or sunwukong incoherent or obtuse, you have different opinions that I do , but I relish the differences.

Thamk you chak for the input and the opinions you expressed here.

Wish I had time to read all the posted comments of this most interesting discussion. I've read a few randomly and I have just got to say..."the Lord be magnified". Always keep in mind that God is omnipotent and all knowing. He (sexist alert, sexist alert) is not caught of guard and wondering what to do about this already condemed world. With Christianity as a standard to compare your take on things you will see that man is fallen low and that the Creator is justified in his condemnation of fallen man. We, apart from God's mercy, are doomed to whatever it is that the Creator has in mind for us. It is something God the Father (a nice way to think of GOD,no?) is warning us throughout His Word that we need to avoid. He has made a way for us to escape that condemnation in His Son's death and ressurection, the plan areed on before the foundation of the world. Men and women have chose to reject the Light and in fact have chosen darkness over the light. This was done for they feared the Light would expose their wicked deeds of darkness. And they are right about that. But do not run from the light! Let it have it perfect effect completed and you'll be glad you did. It'll cleanse you from all unrighteousness, making you fit for eternity with the righteous ones of (that would be me) God.
I've been a Christian for nearly thirty years. I'll add to that 'not a very good Christian. With thirty years of missed opportunities to look at, and the friends and relatives that never knew my beliefs, and some of them are dead and gone, and some of them have had great misery that I know God could have comforted and consoled..and yet my immaturity let me look the other way, I bear shame for not standing up for God, or for pointing others to the God who is alone God. I can't say as did Paul just before his death, "I've fought the good fight. I've completed the course set before me." Not yet, anyways.
And this leads to this, MM, you must fight the 'good fight'. It's worth it. I heard a preacher, Dr. Paul Thoms of Park Street Church, Boston, once state this fact. "Evil and good are set against each other. If one relaxes, the other fills the vacumn created." That's what's happening in our couts and culture. Take a deep breath, everyone. Fight the good fight.

I don't think it is any more sensible to rate Christianity by the dark ages than it is to rate Islam by terrorism. Religions evolve, expelling the worse parts over time. The most heinous act of ignorance would be to dismiss religion as a whole based upon it's failings.

Should we still be dubious about, say, medicine because people once drilled holes in people's heads to let the demons out? No, of course not. We should allow the practice of medicine to continue with the knowledge of how things can go wrong.

Imagine if scientific expression had been permanently squelched because it went againt common sense that the world could be round. Well, to secularist society religion defies "common sense." That doesn't mean the mountains of good done through its moral teachings is somehow outweighed by its failings.

To my knowledge Atheism has done nothing for the world. Atheistic societies like the USSR and China have committed atrocity on a scale that dwarfs, say Hitler. Should we pin their monstrosity on Atheism? No more than we should pin the atrocities of the Inquisition or the Crusades on religion as a whole. Should Atheism be deemed "dangerous" and be forcefully squelched?

People with a foundation in history will know that the church of the middle ages and Rennaisance had a lot more to do with economics and politics than it did with religion. Christianity deserves to be judged by the Crusades as much as Atheism or secularist society should be judged by Stalin's purges.

To my knowledge Atheism has done nothing for the world.

A strange thing to claim since atheism isn't an attribute upon which people socialize or unite around generally. Atheist groups have a very small membership compared to the total number of us around. It's a removal of religion from our lives -- this means we focus, organize and socialize on the other things/causes/people that we are interested/belive in.

An analogy would be if there were Anti-Bigfoot societies that you had to belong to just because you are skeptical/don't believe. It just doesn't work that way.

Or, to be pedantic, you could say, "To my knowledge Agnosticism has done nothing for the world."

have NOT seen the joke in question, please remit so I can laugh.

I will research it and attribute it for the nazi squad.

Perhaps like Sunwukong you find my point of view "incoherent". Perhaps it is. But it at least explains (to me) why the 'exclusive path' and the 'many roads' approaches both continue to thrive, because they both reflect psychological truths of religious life.

Chakgogka,

No, I dont, and I appreciate your thoughts.  My religion use to be very ego centric, and it lost me.  Then it became more all encompassing, and it brought me back.  In other words, I did not leave it, but it came back to me.  I dont think it is difficult.  I think that if we understand the message of our god, then we see that as long as we beleive, we must follow it.  But by the same token, if we beleive the message then we know he cannot condemn so many good and innocent people, and so while they do not follow our path, they follow a good one that will get them there, because he is a loving and caring god.

That is what I beleive, and it is not difficult.  It may be confusing to many, but not difficult.

if we beleive the message then we know he cannot condemn so many good and innocent people, and so while they do not follow our path, they follow a good one that will get them there, because he is a loving and caring god. That is what I beleive, and it is not difficult. It may be confusing to many, but not difficult.

Sounds like you and I believe in the same God.

Reply By: forefather1Posted: Sunday, October 23, 2005

And this leads to this, MM, you must fight the 'good fight'. It's worth it. I heard a preacher, Dr. Paul Thoms of Park Street Church, Boston, once state this fact. "Evil and good are set against each other. If one relaxes, the other fills the vacumn created." That's what's happening in our couts and culture. Take a deep breath, everyone. Fight the good fight.

as a Jew, I do not like bigotry in any form, as a human I think fighting the good fight as you say is all mens duty.