Two More Questions for Not Ready

[David Sklansky]

1. Have you read the debate between Peter 666 and the other Catholics (the thread titled "a couple of questions about Chritianity")? Does it make you think that Peter666 is closer or farther away from your point of view than those others like BluffTHIS or RJT?

2. You seem to be a fan of CS Lewis. So what about this?

"CS Lewis thinks that people of other religions who believe in their religion with a spirit of Christ are saved."

[BluffTHIS!]

I decided to reply and bump this thread since NR appears to be temporarily MIA. I am going to give my opinion on the questions.

#1. On the surface it might appear that NR is further away from Peter666 than myself and others. But there are key similarities in their religious outlook. The most key of these is of course that they both are "protesting" against the Church of Rome by their dissents from its views and practices. Thus they are placing personal judgements or the judgement of a minority over the that of the Church. Another similarity is their more restricted views of who can be saved. Note that while Peter666 would agree that through baptism of desire and conformance with the moral dictates of the natural law, that non-christians might be saved, he has nonetheless seemed to assert more limited views of God's mercy, especially regarding those who actively practice a different religion. I could perhaps be wrong about this.

#2. While NR might admire C.S. Lewis, who as an Anglican was closer in theology to the catholic church than the protestant ones to which NR would most readily identify, NR has stated that he doesn't expect to find perfect doctrine in any denomination, and that is that there is not nor need there be one true christian denomination of all that exist that has the 100% truth. Thus he is comfortable in picking and choosing those theological views that he personally agrees with and rejecting those he doesn't So it would be the same with the views of C.S. Lewis.

We have liberal catholics in the church who do not accept all its doctrines, and we conservatives have a derisive term for them: "cafeteria catholics". Those types of catholics explify the protestant ideal of personal interpretation.

I do not mean to imply by my remarks that any christian denomination that disagrees with doctrines of the catholic church can always be labeled "protestant". Clearly the Orthodox churches do not fall into that category. Nevertheless, Peter666 and NR would both agree that they don't like various but different theological positions and worship practices of the Catholic Church.

Regarding C.S. Lewis, any christian who has not read his Screwtape Letters should do so. It is a masterpiece of insight into human psychology and how over a lifetime a series of rationalizations and hypocrisies can equal de facto rejection of God and the demands of the gospel despite outward public practices and professions of belief.

[Bigdaddydvo]

Bluff, fantastic post.

[ QUOTE ]
On the surface it might appear that NR is further away from Peter666 than myself and others. But there are key similarities in their religious outlook. The most key of these is of course that they both are "protesting" against the Church of Rome by their dissents from its views and practices. Thus they are placing personal judgements or the judgement of a minority over the that of the Church. Another similarity is their more restricted views of who can be saved. Note that while Peter666 would agree that through baptism of desire and conformance with the moral dictates of the natural law, that non-christians might be saved, he has nonetheless seemed to assert more limited views of God's mercy, especially regarding those who actively practice a different religion. I could perhaps be wrong about this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the similarities you outlined, I think there is distinction between guys like Peter666 and NR. Peter seems to view the Church as something static and unchanging, akin to a snapshot of 1950's Catholicism. Though the Church's spiritual truths are immutable, the ways we worship and methods of devotion are subject to change as the Church dictates. As an example, this is shown through as the evolution of the Mass's celebration for the last 2000 years. Peter rejects the Church's authority to make these changes in making clear his dissent with several reforms initiated in the 2nd Vatican Council. To sum, the Church says CHANGE while Peter says DON'T CHANGE. (For the record, I love the Mass in the Latin Rite, and probably cringe as much as you do watching Liturgical abuses like Hand Holding during the Our Father creep into the new Rite. Nonetheless, the New and Latin Rites equally reflect the spiritual magnatude of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

Protestants like NR want reform in areas the Church isn't budging (women priests, birth control OK, etc--I'm not saying Not Ready is for or against these things...the issues are for example purposes only). They are saying CHANGE while the Church is saying NO CHANGE.

They are similar in their rejection of the Magestirium'm ultimate authority to say Yes or No on a particualar subject. It just happens that their motivations for disagreement are different.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

1. Have you read the debate between Peter 666 and the other Catholics


[/ QUOTE ]

I've very quickly scanned some of the posts. I really don't have anything to comment on about it and am not sure of the details of the controversy.

[ QUOTE ]

2. You seem to be a fan of CS Lewis. So what about this?


[/ QUOTE ]

"CS Lewis thinks that people of other religions who believe in their religion with a spirit of Christ are saved."

Lewis is somewhat hard to pin down on particulars of theology. This was intentional on his part. He did not consider himself to be a theologian and he was very ecumenical. If I had to guess I think he would have said no one can reject the Gospel and expect to be saved but that people who never heard the Gospel preached would be judged by God according to the light they had - and though this is somewhat vague, I doubt he would be willing to go beyond that. I would agree with him as stated. Anticipating, I would add that preaching the Gospel to people will not cause someone who would have been saved without it to then be lost. If they don't respond to the Gospel they would not respond to God in any sense. I think that concept can be supported from Scripture indirectly, but the Bible never says absolutely what happens to those who don't hear. So the final word on it is simply what I've said before - God is just and loving.

[siegfriedandroy]

Why is Sklansky (and most all atheist posters on this forum) so centered on questions relating to Christianity? Why not Islam, or Buddhism? Every question (or attempted attack) is always (hyperbole) addressed toward Christianity, in particular. Why? Why are the atheists obsessed with Christianity? Why not just multitable 30/60 18 hours a day, instead of incessantly debating with Not Ready and Bluff This?? It makes zero sense to me. I wish I could play poker like Sklansky, then I would not be a semipoor law student waiting for that big firm job. Then my life will be complete. Of course, Bluff's posts will always have a Catholic bent, just as my guru Sklansky (no sarcasm, it is true - he is my poker guru!) will always come up with further ingenious hypotheticals, etc that are fun to think about, but are in reality pointless and without any merit (or at least relevance, etc) [assuming atheism is really true - which I am certain it is not - even more certain than Sklansky's certainty that it is] But Sklansky's iq is higher than mine; therefore he must be right. i need more beer. Actually, his iq is probably not higher than mine. Unless he is extraordinarily more superior in intelligent than I have judged based on everything I've read. He is no doubt very intelligent, but also narrow in certain areas of his thought. But it all is of no consequence anyway. I will now commence to run around my block naked while playing my 12 string. peace to all. killing is wrong. love is good. morality is real. i will win the wsop in '12. but i suck at chess