XPost: alt.books.cs-lewis, rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: theswain@operamail.com   
      
   stephen@nomail.com wrote:   
   > William Cloud Hicklin  wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 01 May 2007 12:58:08 -0400, Bill Baldwin   
   >> wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>>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. Those who claim to approach the Father by another means do not   
   >>>succeed according to that definition. 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.   
   >>>I hope you can understand that position. It's not possible to discuss   
   >>>if you want to skip that step and go straight to disagreeing.   
   >   
   >   
   >>I do understand the position; but I can't agree.  By your rule they are   
   >>simply not approaching at all, but the Father remains the Father.  It's   
   >>absurd to claim that overnight the Temple at Jerusalem suddenly became the   
   >>shrine of a false god.   
   >   
   >   
   >>You're coming very close to the position that "anyone who doesn't believe   
   >>precisely as I do is a devil-worshipper."  That's a very uncomfortable   
   >>form of, among other things, arrogance. I clearly remember an Assembly of   
   >>God sermon which forcefully distinguished "the Roman religion" from   
   >>Christianity, and the mixture of anger and sadness felt by this particular   
   >>Catholic.   
   >   
   >   
   > You may find it uncomfortable, but do you think it is logically inconsistent?   
      
   Yes, I do find it logically inconsistant.  The reason is that the   
   premises are false.  I believe that Bill has misunderstood the intent   
   and import of the phrase, and certainly hasn't taken it as part of a   
   larger revelation contained in the whole Bible and has rather focused on   
   a single verse and a particular interpretation thereof.  As you know, an   
   untrue premise makes the conclusion invalid in a logical system, so   
   therefore logically inconsistent.   
      
      
   > There is no question that both groups believe they worship the God who spoke   
   to   
   > Abraham, but does that mean that they are in fact worshipping the same God?   
      
   Fair enough question except how do you determine an answer?  Staying   
   just within the Christian fold Pentecostals and Baptists and Anglicans   
   all view the practice of the Christian life and how God manifests   
   himself in this world and even the central message of Christ is vastly   
   different terms.  This, by these definitions, would indicate that these   
   three bodies worship different gods and different christs.  You may say,   
   "Well, yes, they do" which then just gets us to saying that everyone   
   worships then a god of his or her own choosing and making and there is   
   no such thing as THE God who revealed himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.   
      
      
   > That was the point of the various questions about Hindu's and people who   
   > believe that God and Satan are the same being.   
      
   Well, you're overlooking that noone actually believes these things, or   
   at least no one has shown my a Hindu worshipper of Vishnu who claims   
   Christ is Vishnu's anointed incarnation or shown me someone who honestly   
   and earnestly believe God and Satan are the same being.  So those   
   questions really have no meaning since they are false hypotheticals.   
      
      
      How exactly do you determine   
   > the actual identity of the being someone worships? There are extremists out   
   there on all   
   > sides who pray to the God of Abraham for the means to cause death and   
   destruction, and   
   > I am sure they believe their prayers are being answered.  Are they mistaken?   
      
   Fair enough, which is one of the reasons why I keep trying to steer this   
   away from determining what an individual or set of individuals may or   
   may not believe or practice and instead trying to look at the larger   
   picture.  At the same time, one has to ask if those who pray to a divine   
   being to provide them a parking space, or who claim to be doing God's   
   work and fake miracles, or as good Christian leaders schtupe their   
   secretary or male prostitutes are indeed worshipping the same god as   
   those who sacrifice themselves on behalf of others, who work to make the   
   world a better place, who walk humbly with their God.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)