XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: theswain@operamail.com   
      
   Bill Baldwin wrote:   
   > Larry Swain (theswain@operamail.com) wrote:   
   >   
   >>Bill Baldwin wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Larry Swain (theswain@operamail.com) wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>Second, your examples of the Voodoo priest and Hindus are   
   >>>>inaccurate. Neither of those claims to worship Jesus as the "son   
   >>>>of YHWH who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses"; as for   
   >>>>Jews, Muslims, and Chrisitians, they do in fact say that they are   
   >>>>worshipping the YHWH who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and   
   >>>>Moses among others and who created all that there is, i. e. the   
   >>>>same divine being.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>Ok, now we have an answer. You believe that the irreducible core   
   >>>of worship of the God of Abraham can be expressed as you have   
   >>>just expressed it. Any attempt to cast the net more broadly will   
   >>>result in bringing disparate worshipers together by a fallacy of   
   >>>equivocation saying they worship the same God when clearly the   
   >>>gods they worship differ. Any attempt to draw the lines more   
   >>>narrowly will result in denying that others who worship the same   
   >>>God (as you define that term) when in fact they do.   
   >>>   
   >>>Daryl disagrees with where you draw that line. So do I.   
   >>   
   >>On what grounds?   
   >   
   >   
   > I can't answer for Daryl. My answer is this. Jesus and the New   
   > Testament declare that no one can come to the Father except through   
   > him.   
      
   Jesus in the very late gospel of John says this, yes.  Guess Abraham and   
   Moses and Isaiah don't make it in your view.  I do think you are taking   
   the statement out of context and so have misunderstood it.  It isn't   
   meant to be a defining barrier between "US and them", nor a definition   
   of who is saved and who isn't.  And once again, this discussion is not   
   and should not be about who is and who is not saved.   
      
     Those who claim to approach the Father by another means do not   
   > succeed according to that definition.   
      
   Sure, now go read Romans 9-11.  Judaism certainly doesn't approach God   
   through Jesus, yet Paul in your own NT is explicit that the covenant   
   with Israel is VALID, MADE BY GOD, AND STILL IN FORCE.   As far as I   
   know, God's statement "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and I   
   will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" is still true.  And   
   frankly I'm willing to leave the question of who is and who is not going   
   to heaven in those hands.  This discussion should be about "religion"   
   not about faith.   
      
    > They fail to approach the true   
   > God as he has revealed himself incarnate in Christ. What they approach   
   > is a god whom they define in some ways that are formally similar to the   
   > God who has revealed himself incarnate in Christ, but who does not (in   
   > their view) reveal himself incarnate in Christ.   
      
   What does that mean?  Many Protestants would define Roman Catholics,   
   Orthodox, and Copts then as not being Christians because they "fail to   
   approach the true God as he has revealed himself incarnate in Christ."   
   And even among Protestants (and Catholics for that matter) various   
   groups are out for the same reason, so if the Catholics are right, then   
   the Assemblies of God are out, if the Baptists are right, Catholics and   
   AG are out, etc.   
      
      
      
   >   
   >>Daryl at least has been honest enough   
   >   
   >   
   > Your rhetorical style here troubles me, Larry. I am not being   
   > dishonest. I am not concealing anything.   
      
   Well first, I find a rhetorical style that takes half sentences out of   
   context and ascribes to them unintended meaning a troubling rhetorical   
   style.  Second, I didn't say you were being dishonest and didn't mean to   
   intimate anything of the kind.  I was merely pointing to Daryl's   
   comments, the "at least" meaning "characterizing a statement as   
   certainly valid, even if one of a more comprehensive kind be not   
   allowable."  Again, I have to say that I think you are being far too   
   sensitive.   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>to confess   
   >>that his knowledge of Islam is limited and while he knows more   
   >>about certain types of modern Judaism, his knowledge is limited   
   >>there too....these are Daryl's confessions, not mine.  So based on   
   >>a confessed ignorance of the subjects in question, on what basis   
   >>can Daryl really disagree with where the line is drawn?  I've also   
   >>noted in other parts of the thread that Daryl at least seems to   
   >>want to conflate views and definition of "Christian" with those   
   >>whom certain parts of Christianity would define as "saved", which   
   >>isn't the same thing when defining Christianity as a "religion"   
   >>rather than a personal faith.   
   >>   
   >>There have been claims by you and Daryl that Jews and Muslims   
   >>worship a different god, but I've not seen any proof of that or   
   >>why you think so other than claims that they "clearly differ."   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > We've given plenty of explanation, I think.   
      
   Then it should be easy to either reproduce what I seem to have missed   
   from your sent file or point me to some URLs where this detailed   
   explanation has been given.  Please do point me to where this is so that   
   we can discussthese points.   
      
      
   >   
   >>> As far as I   
   >>>can tell you are not making an argument for why you draw the line   
   >>>where you do.   
   >>   
   >>I thought it was implicit.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > Right. And we're explaining to you that it's not. This is part of the   
   > question we're discussing. So you can't assume your own answer as an   
   > unargued presupposition.   
      
   Well, first again, an implicit argument is not the same thing as an   
   unargued presupposition.  The argument is implicit, whether you agree   
   with the argument or not is a different question.   
      
   >   
   >>If I worship the God who made the   
   >>world and appeared to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses and call him   
   >>by the same name as a Muslim and Jew, then it seems to me that   
   >>we're talking about the same god.   
   >   
   >   
   > Then we get right back to the question about someone who claims to   
   > worship that God as one among many, or who claims to worship that God   
   > as one who also appeared under the names "Satan" and "Baal" and   
   > "Osiris".   
      
   This seems to me to be the problem of a false hypothetical.  Again, I'm   
   not terribly interested in individuals: one can find individuals who   
   have all manner of beliefs. Further, I am not able to judge another's   
   person's soul or place in heaven or really even relationship with the   
   HaShem.  I'm interested in a community of adherents as a necessity to   
   defining a religion and a religion's belief system.  As such I have to   
   ask you to produce a community of believers who accept the revelation to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)