You don’t need to be interested in arguing about religion or witnessing. Religious discussion has to go in Great Debates… so that’s where you post it. Threads about those topics are inevitably derailed. It’s impossible to discuss anything in a detached manner because it get’s turned into an argument from what I remember… it’s been a while though. I don’t visit the boards as much as I used to - reason being I’m sick of the idiocy of both sides… so much as there are two.
First, before I say anything, I want to say that you make really great posts… in waiting for you to show up in the aforementioned threads was the only thing that made them worthwhile since so few people here seem to have the capacity to talk about such things.
That post it pretty terrible though. It’s definitely not offensive or whatever, it is just nonsense is all. As previously mentioned, there isn’t really any reason to substitute the term fairy or wizard for something that already has a word for it… unless it’s being used in a pejorative sense.
As for the term “fairy”… I may be wrong, but I don’t know of any gods that are considered fairies. However, that point doesn’t really matter since fairies are generally considered to be minor spirits and things… so to call something like the Judeo-Christian God a fairy is very obviously not the correct terminology.
“Daemon” would actually be a more relevant term due to it’s ambiguity. However the common usage of that sorta word is different from the historical use, so that makes it a poor choice of words as well.
Wizard is much better, except it’s not the same property as a god. If wizards were gods, why wouldn’t all wizards be considered gods? And why are some gods considered wizards? I don’t see a great deal of problem with it despite it being an unnecessary shift to a different term… it except that it seems to be designed specifically to ridicule certain people - since many Christians and Muslims either generally either disbelieve in magic or they consider it evil… that seems to be a cheap shot at their deity.
I think it there was actually critical examination going on, then those terms wouldn’t be used except when they make sense. Just because something is fictional doesn’t give you or me a license to completely ignore the meaning of words. If I’m talking about LOTR, does it make sense to refer to Gimli as “The Troll”? After seeing the the Fellowship of the Ring with my parents… they kept referring to him as that. And that pissed me off. Imagine how pissed off people might be of that if Tolkien’s works were considered as weighty as the Bible, or as weighty as the Illiad and Odyssy were considered? What if that was the mythology that people subscribed to? You can think it’s ridiculous and tell people to not take such stories as more than literature… but why would you intentionally mangle terms unless it was intended to piss people off?
“Most Certainly.” For a guy that doesn’t factually substantiate his claims, you certainly make strong ones.
The Vitruous pagan has been debated in theological circles since the time of Aquinas. The consensus is that, yeah, certain nonChristians can be saved eventually, though of course their mortal soul is imperiled. This consensus was formally backed up by the Council of Trent in the 1500s.
Admittedly, the case studies typically involved people like Socrates, Virgil and others who lived before JC. But the principle remains.
What makes DT’s claim especially dubious is that you don’t need a doctrine of necessity to launch a religious war. Warriors can justify their bloodshed on most good for most number grounds. Pizarro didn’t make elaborate theological arguments when he conquered the Incas. His rationale was simple: he was there to, “Serve God and get rich.”
Dinsdale presented a more accurate characterization of Cecil’s POV in post 478.
From religioustolerance.org:
More generally, other denominations and religions can be perceived with “Extreme Particularlism” (outsiders are damned), “Exclusivism” (outsiders are in grave peril), “Inclusivism” (outsiders are less likely to be saved) and with “Pluralism” (all culturally grounded beliefs are equally valid: within a given culture salvation is available to all).
[quote=religioustolerance.org]
Speaking generally, in most of the world’s main religions:
[ul]
[li] The liberal/progressive wing accepts pluralism,[/li]
[li] The conservative wing teaches inclusivism, and[/li]
[li] The very conservative wing believes in exclusivism, and[/li]
[li] The fundamentalist wing teaches extreme particularism.[/ul] [/li][/quote] http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_plur.htm DanBlather is incorrect when he implies that belief in extreme particularism is universal or even dominant in practice among Christian sects. At least some have recognized that it’s nuts since the time of Aquinas.
[Ironic hijack!] Hijacking can be curbed if the OP is willing to cajole others to stay focused on the underlying argument and to take their hijacks elsewhere. That requires some diplomatic and continuous thread management however. [/Ironic hijack!]