Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

@Truean:

Quick question, what's your stance on missionaries?

The bible (John, I think) says that we should try to reach out to gentiles, but if it doesn't work than leave them be, for agitating them more won't help turn them to Christianity.

Whatdo I think about telemarketers and door to door salesmen eh GG? Wait, that doesn't sound, right hang on [looks back and rereads]... O, well then, missionaries ... door to door salesmen; it still fits a pretty good actually. We're gonna pretend that was on purpose ok? Nobody say anything....

So yeah, the same rules apply for both missionaries and pushy door to door salesmen:

A.) They have to show up at the worst possible times. Examples include: my door on my one day off, a country that doesn't want them, or during dinner.
B.) They have to be selling something you weren't looking to buy; You know, like, encyclopedias, novelty vacuum cleaners, religions, or steak knives.
C.) They have to tell you its for your own good to buy into what they're selling.
D.) They have to use high pressure sales tactics and upselling.
E.) Very few people buy into anything from them.
F.) They tend not to want to leave when you tell them to.
G.) And finally, their reward depends on how many people they sell too....

In addition to being annoying, the "in your face" approach to selling stuff/marketing is completely ineffective and doesn't work. This is why so many of the old missionary saints tend to have been horribly killed while off a-missionary...ing.... Thus, instead of "spreading your cause" you've caused people to consider you pushy/preachy o missionaries. Good job....

Na man. History has also proven that they often tried to forcibly convert/conquest all over the place. There's been enough spreading, goings forth, multiplyings, and all of that. It's about time for that live and let live thing to take hold. If not that then the "preach to everyone" thing needs to lighten up at least.

This is now the Chill and Relaxed Progressive Theology Thread.

Vector Industries Stamp of Approval Pending.

DENIED

I for one, approve of this stamp. Not that my approval matters, but I'm going to tell myself it does. Don't any of you believe me when I do.

[EveryZig]

A question on theology:
From what I hear, christianity says that God is the standard/definition for goodness.
Is there a particular reason why this is, or is it a matter of 'it is because it is'? (The latter is not necessarily a bad thing; I have never seen a (non-circular) belief system or philosophy that does not end up there if you ask 'why' for long enough.)

On missionaries:
Many christians say that people who live moral lives without hearing about christianity can attain salvation (due to fairness issues otherwise).
If that is the case, would missionaries then be potentially sending members of some remote tribe to hell by telling them about christianity, which they then reject (while living otherwise moral lives)?

[Rose]

Good has always been defined as "Whatever benefits 'us'"

[kaijyuu]

A question on theology:
From what I hear, christianity says that God is the standard/definition for goodness.
Is there a particular reason why this is, or is it a matter of 'it is because it is'? (The latter is not necessarily a bad thing; I have never seen a (non-circular) belief system or philosophy that does not end up there if you ask 'why' for long enough.)

Essentially, it is because it is. Still a bit deeper than that, though.

1) God's omniscient, so him knowing everything is a pretty good case for him knowing logically what's "right" and what's "wrong."
2) He made the universe and everything in it, so he can set his own rules regardless.

On missionaries:
Many christians say that people who live moral lives without hearing about christianity can attain salvation (due to fairness issues otherwise).
If that is the case, would missionaries then be potentially sending members of some remote tribe to hell by telling them about christianity, which they then reject (while living otherwise moral lives)?

Probably differs depending on denomination and whatnot, but the idea is it probably doesn't matter (for their salvation) if they get the message or not. You're judged based on who you are as a person ("works" sometimes used as justification for why you're good/bad), so opportunity doesn't really matter like that. If you're an evil person, you'll be damned whether you get the message or not. Similarly, a good person will be saved whether they get the message or not.

The point of preaching/etc is to improve people's lives. Or so that's the theory. Some faiths require belief for salvation, so going out and preaching does help people, but the same faiths usually provide methods for those without the opportunity to be saved (just usually in a less pleasant manner). So preaching helps those who accept it, doesn't do much for those who don't (they're damned anyway).

EDIT: There still do exist faiths where belief in this life is a requirement for salvation, but those are much rarer nowadays than previously.

EDITEDIT: I'm also generalizing quite a bit on the "why." A Calvinist will have a very different opinion on why someone is saved than a Catholic.

[EveryZig]

Neither of those really work out though.

1) God's omniscient, so him knowing everything is a pretty good case for him knowing logically what's "right" and what's "wrong."

God's omniscience letting him know what is 'right' and 'wrong' would only apply if there is a separate 'right' and 'wrong' for him to know, which would mean that he just follows morality rather than defining it.

2) He made the universe and everything in it, so he can set his own rules regardless.

By most systems of morality, that is an extremely morally dubious claim.
But the actual logical problem with that as an explanation is that it gets circular. It is basically saying that God defines rightness, because he built the universe so it is right that he do so. In other words, it uses morality to justify the origin and shape of morality.

EDIT: There still do exist faiths where belief in this life is a requirement for salvation, but those are much rarer nowadays than previously.

Don't many major branches of christianity officially state that Jesus is the one and only only path to salvation? Though I suppose that might just be fundies being louder than the rest.

[ChairmanPoo]

Christians don't normally argue from either of those points,. They usually follow  reasonings on the lines God is perfect-Goodness is a perfection-God is good.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Speaking of Theology: UK Government effectively bans the teaching of Creationism in Free Schools.

[Heron TSG]

Hrm... didn't we do that here in the States quite a while ago? I hope that's the thing I'm thinking of, anyway. Regardless, hurrah for the United Kingdom!

[kaijyuu]

Neither of those really work out though.

1) God's omniscient, so him knowing everything is a pretty good case for him knowing logically what's "right" and what's "wrong."

God's omniscience letting him know what is 'right' and 'wrong' would only apply if there is a separate 'right' and 'wrong' for him to know, which would mean that he just follows morality rather than defining it.

2) He made the universe and everything in it, so he can set his own rules regardless.

By most systems of morality, that is an extremely morally dubious claim.
But the actual logical problem with that as an explanation is that it gets circular. It is basically saying that God defines rightness, because he built the universe so it is right that he do so. In other words, it uses morality to justify the origin and shape of morality.

Yeah neither of those are really good claims, but they're better than the "just 'cause he is" that you'll normally get. Like Chairmanpoo said, most the time it's just God is Good. Pressure someone who's studied theology and they'll probably give you one of the above two I gave, though.

EDIT: There still do exist faiths where belief in this life is a requirement for salvation, but those are much rarer nowadays than previously.

Don't many major branches of christianity officially state that Jesus is the one and only only path to salvation? Though I suppose that might just be fundies being louder than the rest.

I'm not an expert on christianity in the least, but the ones I've been in contact with let you accept Jesus in the afterlife. Mormonism, for example, will stick you in a sort of limbo until the second coming of Christ, during which time you'll be visited by preachers. Accept the faith, and boom you're saved (with some added requirements like baptism and marriage, both of which can be done in the afterlife too (but technically only after the second coming or by proxy on earth, it's funky)).

[Nadaka]

Speaking of Theology: UK Government effectively bans the teaching of Creationism in Free Schools.

Creationism is perfectly acceptable in a comparative theology class right along side the dream time, and elephants standing on a turtle.

Hrm... didn't we do that here in the States quite a while ago? I hope that's the thing I'm thinking of, anyway. Regardless, hurrah for the United Kingdom!

It came back. Several states have been "teaching the controversy" or offering "alternative interpretations" recently. And a few loonies have been trying to remove evolution and the big bang from science classes.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Yeah, I'm unaware if we have a countrywide ban on Creationism and also Intelligent Design in public schools. From what I hear evolution is still quite the hot-button issue in the Bible Belt.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Supreme Court ruled that Creationism is not science and cannot be taught in schools. District courts have ruled that Intelligent Design is also not science, and the proponents of ID have not gotten it to the Supreme Court as of now.

So no, you can't teach anything but evolution in the US, as much as certain states try not to. I remember that when we went over evolution in my school, there was this guy sitting near me who constantly muttered under his breath for the entire unit. I don't know if he was constantly praying, or trying to justify rejecting evolution to himself, or what, but it definitely wasn't pleasant. Or particularly sane.

And I still occasionally here "It's only a theory!" from other students. In AP classes. That have nothing do do with evolution or biology in general.

[ChairmanPoo]

Yeah neither of those are really good claims, but they're better than the "just 'cause he is" that you'll normally get. Like Chairmanpoo said, most the time it's just God is Good. Pressure someone who's studied theology and they'll probably give you one of the above two I gave, though.

Actually, I think a theologian would answer with a "God is Good" reasoning. Most Christian denominations stick to it as dogma:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence#Religious_perspectives

The argument you put forward sounds more likely coming form a non-religious person. Most practitioners of religions actually think highly of their divinity of choice, they don't just bow and scrape because he/she/it is mighty and might just smite them otherwise (though they MIGHT think this as well).

[Heron TSG]

Edward vs. Aguillard, I believe, was the Supreme Court case stating that Louisiana could not in fact enforce the teaching of creationism, and that was in the 70's or 80's. I don't think there's a nationwide ban, then, considering that Louisiana tried.

...Evolution is still quite the hot-button issue in the Bible Belt.

And in its satellite, the Oppressed Conservative State of Washington. (The half that's full of people whining about how Seattle makes us a liberal state.) There have been people trying to get the school board to force teachers to teach it here for years, but I've always heard that there's some legal precedent against it.

[penguinofhonor]

For some reason I've found myself a lot more interested in revising my writing. Hopefully this new urge will help out a lot in school this semester.