• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Church Reaffirms That Jews Can Achieve Salvation Without Conversion

Natan said:
I don't know how to interpret the rules. It is not in scripture. Does being critical of religion mean: critical of the existence of God, critical of the religion of others or what? I am trying to present things as logically as possible and adhere to the rules as much as possible. I listed the option list in a fashion that attempts to be:

1. logical
2. devoid of establishing the existence or non existence of religion
3. kind of neutral as to which version of religion is real (or whether all are not real)
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
The issues are with your commenting ON the rules or ON addressing, publicly, what you think breaks the rules. The thread is fine other than that. Stop commenting on the rules and just stick to the topic... which also is fine.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
False. To a Jew, if the Christian bible claims eternal damnation, since the Christian God doesn't exist, this is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see the origin of the problem. Refusal to accept the religion of others *could* be true, even as a mere thought experiment, and to display it to all others.
 
Natan said:
Ah, I see the origin of the problem. Refusal to accept the religion of others *could* be true, even as a mere thought experiment, and to display it to all others.
Click to expand...

No. There is a difference between accepting that the religion of others is valid to them and accepting that the religion of others could be true. This is not a thought experiment. We are discussing what folks from a religion believe.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
We are discussing what folks from a religion believe.
Click to expand...
Yes we are. Religion is usually (non theistic religions like buddhism excepted) about the existence of one (possibly divided into an unspecified number of entities, 3 in most of christianity) or multiple Gods. So provided either one of these Gods exist (as you seem to believe) and which seems to be the desired opinion around these parts, the wishes of the God(s) are usually quite relevant to whoever adheres the faith AND those who do not adhere that particular God or those particular Gods. Many faiths do have some unpleasant afterlife punishments as per their God(s) rules.
 
Natan said:
I am not pretending.
Click to expand...
Are you sure, since I don't recall you saying anything remotely relating to scepticism or you disbelief in the Bible.

Except over here I'd better pretend not to be an atheist as being critical of religion is against the rules and is dangerous
Click to expand...
As I don't believe you'd ever do that, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

No, I am arguing against the simplification the NT is irrelevant to jews. Here is the full option list (add if I forget some):

1. There is no God (ouch): it is irrelevant to jews and everyone else
2. There is Allah: it is irrelevant to jews
3. There is Jehovah (do I get stoned?): it is irrelevant to jews
4. There is the christian God as per the bible: it is relevant due to eternal damnation in a pretty unpleasant place
5. There is the christian God as per the Vatican: it is STILL relevant as the works listed are not in the Old Testament
6. There is the christian God as per personal conviction: depends on the personal conviction
7. There is a non Abrahamic religion God: it is irrelevant to jews and everyone else
Click to expand...

Now you're getting weird. 'There is Allah'??? In the NT? If you're now NOT referring to the NT, what are you talking about?

You appear to be saying (although the convoluted logic of your post makes nothing clear) that non-Christians, specifically Jews, ought to find relevance in all strains of Christian theology, and a bit of Islam. What exactly do you mean by 'relevant'? If you mean it's relevant by showing up the falsity of beliefs that the Jews themselves do not hold.

I really don't have the first clue what your list of 7 points is meant to show.
 
Andalublue said:
Now you're getting weird. 'There is Allah'??? In the NT? If you're now NOT referring to the NT, what are you talking about?
Click to expand...
I am talking about the various possible existences of various Gods and their relevance to the afterlife as far as NT rules and guidelines are concerned. I see thought experiments are quite hard to follow for those who probably have already solidly made up their minds about which option (bar 1.) is the only true one.
 
Natan said:
Yes we are. Religion is usually (non theistic religions like buddhism excepted) about the existence of one (possibly divided into an unspecified number of entities, 3 in most of christianity) or multiple Gods. So provided either one of these Gods exist (as you seem to believe) and which seems to be the desired opinion around these parts, the wishes of the God(s) are quite relevant to whoever adheres the faith AND those who do not adhere that particular God or those particular Gods.
Click to expand...

You almost had it right... right up until the last part. If one believes in a certain religion and a certain God or set of Gods and whose faith is connected to that, other religions and other Gods are irrelevant to that individual's belief system. Muslims are unconcerned about Thor. Christians are unconcerned about Allah. Jews are unconcerned about Zeus, etc... Faith in one's religion, from a faith standpoint, makes irrelevant other religions and Gods. Now, faith and logic are two different concepts, concepts that do not intersect. One can have faith in their religious beliefs, and, at the same time, understand the logic behind the beliefs of other religions.
 
Natan said:
I am talking about the various possible existences of various Gods and their relevance to the afterlife as far as NT rules and guidelines are concerned. I see thought experiments are quite hard for those who probably have already solidly made up their minds about which option (bar 1.) is the only true one.
Click to expand...

No, thought experiments are not difficult for those who believe in a particular religion. But there is a difference between relevance when it comes to one's faith, and relevance when it comes to information. These are two different concepts. My guess is that your questions on this issue might be suited in The Philosophy Forum, as you seem to be discussing a non-faith issue.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If one believes in a certain religion and a certain God or set of Gods and whose faith is connected to that, other religions and other Gods are irrelevant to that individual's belief system.
Click to expand...
Yes, and if one's belief system is wrong and one of the others is right (try acknowledging this for a moment as thought experiment), it COULD be relevant and have far reaching consequences.
 
Natan said:
Yes, and if one's belief system is wrong and one of the others is right (try acknowledging this for a moment as thought experiment), it COULD be relevant.
Click to expand...

A belief system, by it's very definition is neither right or wrong. It is believed. As I said, there is a difference between belief and what you are talking about. In order for your thought experiment to work, the presenting supposition must be, "it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that [insert God's name here] exists and all others do not. Is this relevant to those of other belief systems?" Unless this is your premise, the belief systems of any religion rejects the relevance, FROM A FAITH STANDPOINT, of any other religion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
A belief system, by it's very definition is neither right or wrong.
Click to expand...
No, it is quite binary:

1. there is no God
2. there are one or multiple Gods.

As such, there can be only one correct belief system in case of 2. In case of 1., only atheism and agnosticism are correct "belief" systems.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No. Christians concern themselves with the Christian God... Jews with the Jewish God. I'd hope you know the difference between the two and why one does not really apply to the other.

And why would my belief have anything to do with the discussion?
Click to expand...

They are one and the same, for both Christians and Jews - God, that is.
 
Natan said:
No, it is quite binary:

1. there is no God
2. there are one or multiple Gods.

As such, there can be only one correct belief system in case of 2. In case of 1., only atheism and agnosticism are correct "belief" systems.
Click to expand...

Right or wrong are subjective. These issues are only binary to the individual. Globally, they are not. Also, your two points are stated in "factual" ways. One cannot discuss beliefs as facts, unless one is making the supposition that I stated in my last post. From a belief standpoint, your points need to be rephrases as follows:

1) It is believed that there is no God
2) It is believed that there is a or multiple Gods.

Do you see the difference?
 
Beaudreaux said:
They are one and the same, for both Christians and Jews - God, that is.
Click to expand...

Not really. There are differences, though among religions, the God of each is probably the most similar.
 
Natan said:
No, it is quite binary:

1. there is no God
2. there are one or multiple Gods.

As such, there can be only one correct belief system in case of 2. In case of 1., only atheism and agnosticism are correct "belief" systems.
Click to expand...

As both of your points are demonstrably unknowable, there can be no proof that one or the other is correct. Basing a thought experiment on an assumption that cannot exist is therefore impossible and, re: this thread, irrelevant.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not really. There are differences, though among religions, the God of each is probably the most similar.
Click to expand...

The God of the Jews is the same God of Christians. The difference is that Christians combine God and Jesus as two parts of the Holy Trinity. Other than that, God is the same God of both - the God of Abraham, Moses, and David.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The God of the Jews is the same God of Christians. The difference is that Christians combine God and Jesus as two parts of the Holy Trinity. Other than that, God is the same God of both - the God of Abraham, Moses, and David.
Click to expand...

That combination makes Him different.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Right or wrong are subjective. These issues are only binary to the individual. Globally, they are not. Also, your two points are stated in "factual" ways. One cannot discuss beliefs as facts, unless one is making the supposition that I stated in my last post. From a belief standpoint, your points need to be rephrases as follows:

1) It is believed that there is no God
2) It is believed that there is a or multiple Gods.

Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...
I see there is a difference but I do not see your point. Please clarify where you stand. Are you jewish/atheist/agnost (I think the other options are out)? To me, it seems as if you believe in a God for the sake of believing, not for the sake of whether that God factually exists in the end or not. There are also things such as facts, and in the end it is fact that 1. either there is/are God(s) 2. there are none.
 
Natan said:
I see there is a difference but I do not see your point. Please clarify where you stand. Are you jewish/atheist/agnost (I think the other options are out)? To me, it seems as if you believe in a God for the sake of believing, not for the sake of whether that God factually exists in the end or not. There are also things such as facts, and in the end it is fact that 1. either there is/are God(s) 2. there are none.
Click to expand...

I already stated, faith and fact do not intersect on this issue. I believe in God from a faith based standpoint. That's really all I concern myself with in this discussion. I choose not to debate the factual existence or non-existence of God. The discussion doesn't interest me other than from a lesson in logic.
 
Beaudreaux said:
The God of the Jews is the same God of Christians. The difference is that Christians combine God and Jesus as two parts of the Holy Trinity.
Click to expand...
You don't think that's a very big difference? You also seem to ignore the large number of Christian denominations who don't recognise the Trinitarian dogma. I guess you could argue that the god of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Jewish god are much more similar.
 
Good, civil discussion, folks, but time for me to log off. See ya.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
The discussion doesn't interest me other than from a lesson in logic.
Click to expand...
Well, I am trying to argument logically whether or not the NT matters to jews from the point of view of the factual existence or not existence of God(s). If you have no interest in that discussion, perhaps you should have stayed out instead of blurting out it does not matter.
 
Natan said:
Well, I am trying to argument logically whether or not the NT matters to jews from the point of view of the factual existence or not existence of God(s).
Click to expand...

You can't do that. Clearly you can't, because you haven't. Logic cannot help turn belief into fact, or vice versa.
 
Natan said:
Well, I am trying to argument logically whether or not the NT matters to jews from the point of view of the factual existence or not existence of God(s). If you have no interest in that discussion, perhaps you should have stayed out instead of blurting out it does not matter.
Click to expand...

The factual existence of God has nothing to do with one's belief in God, since the factual existence cannot be proven. Because of this, your entire line of discussion really isn't relevant... which is what I've been trying to tell you. You must make the supposition that the existence (or non-existence) of God IS proven in order for your line of discussion to be relevant. If you don't make that supposition, one's belief system rules, and the lack of relevance because of that belief system is accurate.
 
Andalublue said:
You can't do that. Clearly you can't, because you haven't. Logic cannot help turn belief into fact, or vice versa.
Click to expand...

Correct. Logic and belief are separate issues. One can hold both at the same time, but they still don't intersect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom