Sorry Romney

[Klast Brell]

Kulaf:
I looked up metaphysics and I saw that it was a branch of philosophy. I did not get a degree in philosophy and I'm pretty sure you did not either. So Rather than try and learn the field and then guess how much you might know about it I just asked you what it meant to you. You respond by linking to a web page that aggregates dictionary definitions. Those definitions were completely useless. Look at the very first set

1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.
4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

Can you put your hand on a bible and swear in Jesus Christ's name that you know what Ontology, Epistemology, Abstruse, and teleological mean? (without looking it up you cheater) That's pretty much why I disregarded your link.


Embar:
You got busted. Just admit it. Its too late to go back and redefine what you meant. Besides Eastern Orthodox is a Christian religion. And even if it is "Wishful thinking" they are discussing it. Do you wish to redefine what you meant by discuss?

[Harlowe]

I was following where Embar was going and I don't think he was busted trying "redefine" his argument. He was clarifying. /does the shrug thing

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yeah.. I don't get what Klast is thinking.

Klast... what exactly do you think I'm redefining?

[Klast Brell]

I was thinking you were going back after the fact and saying "that doesn't count because I didn't mean Non-Christian Abrahamaic religions" then back pedaling further saying "that doesn't count because I didn't mean Christian denominations I'm not familiar with"

[Embar Angylwrath]

Errr... what doesn't count? I'm not getting you at all.

[Klast Brell]

Errr... what doesn't count? I'm not getting you at all.

Are you just trolling me now?

Embar Angylwrath wrote:No formal religion wants to discuss the possibility there might be other ways into heaven, other than than by knowing Christ.

[Harlowe]

I don't think he was trolling, I knew what he was saying even though he didn't define in absolutes. I thought he was talking about traditional mainstream Christian denominations.

Because really what other formal religion is going to be discussing Christ and getting into heaven, but Christians? And I assumed he was talking about your basic mainstream ones like - Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostal, Mormons, Baptists, Evangelicals etc.

That's how I read it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Klast... here's the entire post. Please read it again.. in context. I've highlighted some words that might help you understand the context in which I was speaking. Oh, and Harlowe was right on in her assessment. She gets it (as did everyone else who responded to the post). In fact, I accurately framed the post in the final paragraph.. see below.

So would YOU care to admit you were wrong, as you asked me to do?

Jecks -

The dialogue concerning the celibacy is just a red herring that detracts from the core issues of the debate. Is not the debate of celibacy/non-celibacy just one of those "LEGALISMS" you decried earlier? I'd like to focus on the concept Jesus as saviour, and how formal religions treat that concept, and I'd like to return to the point/question of what happens when a persone dies never having had the chance to be exposed to the word of God. Now, you can cry "LEGALISM!!! LEGALISM!!! LEGALISM!!!" all you want, but don't you find it odd that the question has never been officially addressed by any formalized Christian religion? It seems to me thats a pretty important concept, don't you?

The scripture is LOADED with citations and references that Christ died for the sake of ALL men. All men everywhere. Through time. Over and over and over again that message is hammered home in the New Testament. Yet, organized religion seems to want to ignore those people that just never get the chance to hear the word of god in this life. Why is that, you think?

Let me offer this... if a formal religion, and let's pick on the Catholics, since I'm one of them, says that baptism is the only way to remove the taint of original sin, which is a requisite to entering heaven, and no one whoo isn't baptized will head straight to the fiery punishment of hells perdition. Doesn't matter if it was an infant who died in childbirth. The infant burns in hell. Doesn't matter if it was a righteous American Indian that lived a just life, that heathen will burn in hell. (And this also begs the question of why God would want to deny the Word of Himself to American Indians for almost 1500 years...doesn't God care about those poor bastards?)

No formal religion wants to discuss the possibility there might be other ways into heaven, other than than by knowing Christ. They won't ever take a formal stance on it, only saying it might be "possible" that souls, upon death, are given the opportunity to know and choose. The Catholics engaged in some serious false constructs, going so far as to invent a mythical place called Limbo, where they placed all these souls. They have since reveresed themselves (again) a couple of years back. Before the concept of Limbo, however, the dirty little secret was that the Catholics held that unbaptized souls, regardless of innocence, suffered the torments of hell for eternity. Limbo was the Catholic answer to that nagging little problem. It bothered the conscience to think that God would throw an innocent into the fires of hell. So, even with NO biblical support, the biggest Christian religion fabricated the construct of Limbo. They would rather accept unsubstantiated delusion than admit souls might be able to get into heaven without the help of the Church.

And there, my friend, is why Christian religions maintain the path to heaven is through Christ (ostensibly through the direction of whatever flavor of religion a person belongs too). Admitting that God just might have figured out a way to get souls into heaven without actually having known Christ in this lifetime is tantamount to admitting there is little need for the Christian religions, becuase if God can do it for a heathen American Indian, why can't he do it for everyone?

[Klast Brell]

OK fine the jews don't count. But you still are sticking your fingers in your ears and singing La La La La when I mention Eastern Orthodox.

[Trollbait]

Wait, is someone suggesting that Eastern Orthodox is not a mainstream Christian denomination?

[Kulaf]

Kulaf:
I looked up metaphysics and I saw that it was a branch of philosophy. I did not get a degree in philosophy and I'm pretty sure you did not either. So Rather than try and learn the field and then guess how much you might know about it I just asked you what it meant to you. You respond by linking to a web page that aggregates dictionary definitions. Those definitions were completely useless. Look at the very first set

1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.
4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

Can you put your hand on a bible and swear in Jesus Christ's name that you know what Ontology, Epistemology, Abstruse, and teleological mean? (without looking it up you cheater) That's pretty much why I disregarded your link.

Well for one.....the bible is just a book and nothing else so there is no reason to place ones hand on it........and two.....since I was only like 6 credits short of a minor in Philosophy......sure.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think anyone who graduated college is about 6 credits away from any type of minor. Hell.. I was about 6 credits away from a minor in astrophysics, business, chemical engineering, political science, history and art. Once you get all your broad-based courses in, the minor is only a couple of classes away .... in any direction.

[Kulaf]

Umm.....not at my old college. The only overlap in a Philosophy minor from my Information Systems degree was two classes, one in logic and one in business ethics. You then needed another 30 credits.....which is 10 classes as we were on a 3 credit system.

[Harlowe]

If he's talking about mainstream US, then yes, it's not really a mainstream religious group in the US.

[Partha]

Depending on who you talk to, there's anywhere from 1.2 to 4 million members of Orthodox churches. That's not big enough?

[Harlowe]

From what I've seen it's more like 1.2 million (I haven't seen that 4 mil estimate) and when you compare that to the number of the other denominations that we were talking about (Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals etc) it's not that much. It certainly isn't what pops into your head when you are just speaking in broad terms.

If you want to just weigh down a very general discussion with technicalities and minutia, feel free to invite Rsak in and we can further get off the topic and just argue specifics and what Embar did or didn't mean.

[Trollbait]

It certainly isn't what pops into your head when you are just speaking in broad terms.

Well...there is the admission. It is not what pops into YOUR head.

Here in Toledo Ohio with the large Eastern Mediterranean population the Eastern Orthodox are mainstream.

When you say "mainstream" I think "non-extraordinary". Since along side Catholocism Eastern Othordox is one of the oldest established Christian demoniations out there with their own set of rules, sacrements, and traditions dating to the time of the Period of Ecumenical Councils I think any reasonable person would call them "mainstream".

[Arathena]

You can't really restrict 'mainstream religious thought' to 'mainstream religious thought in America'. As many of her colonies were founded by religious sects seeking freedom to practice dogma that was considered heretical in their native lands, a great deal of the religious tradition here is descended from thought that many in Europe considered erroneous. People in those traditions went on to found even more sects. About 1/3rd of the world's Protestants live in the USA, representing about 8% of the world's Christian population. Thus, the viewpoint here is thus skewed from the traditional mainstream. About a quarter of the world's Christians are Orthodox. About half the world's Christians are Catholic, and the Church generically endorses the much Orthodox tradition and recognizes it as valid. It's really hard to get more mainstream than that.

[Embar Angylwrath]

As a point of clarification, nowhere in my posts did I even hint that Orthodox Christians were somehow excluded from inclusion as Christians. The confusion started when Klast linked some quote from wikipedia, of all places, that inferred the Eastern Orthodox Christians held as part of their sacred tradition that, at the time of death of an unbaptized, innocent soul, John the Baptist appeared and kinda waived them in to heaven.

My response to Klast was that sacred tradition isn't dogma. Its more akin to fairy tales than it is to an official ecclesiastical stance. Again, picking on the Catholics, Limbo was part of our sacred tradition was well, until Church leaders finally made the admission that it simply can't exist if what they understand about God is true.

[Klast Brell]

whether it's dogma or merely sacred tradition it is still a willingness to discuss.