Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
01-08-2009, 08:21 PM
Post: #1
Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
Most religions hold that they have the right ideas and doctrine and that other religions are wrong. I think that most Christians would believe that Jesus is central, but is it still Christian to say he was a good example but not a sacrifice for the sins of everybody?

Going further afield, what's the acceptance of Islamic beliefs in obedience to the will of god and to refuse to elevate any human to more than prophet?

Or Judaism, which seeks to follow what Christians call the old testament covenant?

I got to think of this in the past while and wonder how it could possibly be that sme of these were all wrong and one of them all correct. Just trying to stimulate a conversation here and hopefully to learn something. Not looking to be told I am hell-bound or anything! Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2009, 05:40 AM
Post: #2
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
Wohhhah! *lol* Whole bunch of issues tied into that question! Like for instance is truth absolute or subjective? Good luck on untying that gordian knot. Smile

"Love is not a feeling, it's an act of your will." Don Francisco.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2009, 07:30 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2009 07:32 AM by Anglican.)
Post: #3
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
(01-08-2009 08:21 PM)twenty-two20 Wrote:  Most religions hold that they have the right ideas and doctrine and that other religions are wrong. I think that most Christians would believe that Jesus is central, but is it still Christian to say he was a good example but not a sacrifice for the sins of everybody?

As C S Lewis pointed out, it is hardly consistent to describr somebody as a "good example", and then go on to say that he was lying through his teeth when he claimed divine status.


Quote:Going further afield, what's the acceptance of Islamic beliefs in obedience to the will of god and to refuse to elevate any human to more than prophet?

A Christian would doubtless agree with them about that; where they would disagree is in their estimation of Jesus.


Quote:Or Judaism, which seeks to follow what Christians call the old testament covenant?

So from a Christian perspective they are wrong, and vice versa.


Quote:I got to think of this in the past while and wonder how it could possibly be that sme of these were all wrong and one of them all correct. Just trying to stimulate a conversation here and hopefully to learn something. Not looking to be told I am hell-bound or anything! Smile

It is only necessary to believe that one of them is closer to the truth than the others. The divinity of Jesus does not guarantee that Christianity is free from error, because Christianity consists of a metaphysical belief system built upon an interpretation of Jesus' words. On the other hand, you can only hold that interpretation to be completely wide of the mark if you believe that theologians have been supremely incompetent over the last two thousand years, but now (at last!) you have come along to set them to rights.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2009, 10:00 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2009 10:02 AM by twenty-two20.)
Post: #4
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
I know about CS Lewis. His thinking approach to Christianity is what got me beyond the childhood scare tactics to make you believe I'm just having trouble with the leavig out of billions who have other beliefs, It seems internally contradictory that someone could be a faithful Moslem or whatever, but according to the idea that the only way forward is acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ, but this is contrary to the idea of an all encompassing love and human family.

When you say one closer that others to the truth I understand you and know this is what we've always been told, butyou say it much more tactfully than I've heard it before. What about the person who is a faithful "whatever" and has heard the christian message but rejects it out of hand because it does not fit with family and cultural traditions, and to accept it means losing everything except Christ? For those of us in Christian countries, to accept the Christian message is going much more with the current (yes, much of the christianity we see is just a thin pretending type of it).

My thoughts here are stimulated by the ideas of "gathering from the ends of the earth" and "sheep of other flocks" etc. I don't know exactly where such things are in the bible but I am stating something close I think. please be clear, I am not intending to set anyone straight. just like to learn and expand my understandings about this. I don't think asking questions and discussion means I am pretending to be a theologian nor that I am smarter than anyone else. I think about a lot of this that I am much less informed that people who had a lifetime growing up with it.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2009, 11:28 AM
Post: #5
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
(01-09-2009 10:00 AM)twenty-two20 Wrote:  I know about CS Lewis. His thinking approach to Christianity is what got me beyond the childhood scare tactics to make you believe I'm just having trouble with the leavig out of billions who have other beliefs, It seems internally contradictory that someone could be a faithful Moslem or whatever, but according to the idea that the only way forward is acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ, but this is contrary to the idea of an all encompassing love and human family.

When you say one closer that others to the truth I understand you and know this is what we've always been told, butyou say it much more tactfully than I've heard it before. What about the person who is a faithful "whatever" and has heard the christian message but rejects it out of hand because it does not fit with family and cultural traditions, and to accept it means losing everything except Christ? For those of us in Christian countries, to accept the Christian message is going much more with the current (yes, much of the christianity we see is just a thin pretending type of it).

My thoughts here are stimulated by the ideas of "gathering from the ends of the earth" and "sheep of other flocks" etc. I don't know exactly where such things are in the bible but I am stating something close I think. please be clear, I am not intending to set anyone straight. just like to learn and expand my understandings about this. I don't think asking questions and discussion means I am pretending to be a theologian nor that I am smarter than anyone else. I think about a lot of this that I am much less informed that people who had a lifetime growing up with it.
I agree. A loving God would allow everyone to eventually spend eternity with Him. If someone has done wrong, penitence is required but in the end, everyone gets there.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2009, 06:33 AM
Post: #6
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
(01-09-2009 11:28 AM)Messenger Wrote:  I agree. A loving God would allow everyone to eventually spend eternity with Him. If someone has done wrong, penitence is required but in the end, everyone gets there.

If an atheist is none too keen on being answerable to God in this life, why should he find the idea of spending eternity in his presence any more palatable? And if he thinks that he could do without that experience, thanks very much, why should not God oblige him?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2009, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2009 09:27 AM by twenty-two20.)
Post: #7
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
But I am thinking about people answerable to other religious traditions not just religion avoiders and deniers.

In addition, might God not be interested in all peoples because of supreme love? Prodigal son type of love? Perhaps parents should really totally disown or even wish death on really bad children, but I don't think that is very loving. This is where I'm having trouble with this.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2009, 10:29 AM (This post was last modified: 01-12-2009 10:45 AM by Anglican.)
Post: #8
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
(01-10-2009 09:26 AM)twenty-two20 Wrote:  But I am thinking about people answerable to other religious traditions not just religion avoiders and deniers.

In addition, might God not be interested in all peoples because of supreme love? Prodigal son type of love? Perhaps parents should really totally disown or even wish death on really bad children, but I don't think that is very loving. This is where I'm having trouble with this.

This may sound hard, but if God exists there is no point in trying to tell him that you totally disapprove of the way he runs the universe, and think it is a disgrace that he is not more equable in his dealings with human beings. On the other hand, if he doesn't exist, then he hasn't got any actions or atrributes for you to approve or disapprove of.

The idea that God is an American style president, who can be expected to stand for election every four years, and he needn't expect your vote unless he pursues policies you approve of, is a modern fallacy. If he exists, God is God, and, if he exists, he isn't going to go away just because you wished a God like that didn't exist.

To say that you are prepared to believe in God, but only if you are allowed to asign him the attributes you think he ought to have, is a sure fire way to end up with an idol created in your own image. An idol, what is more, who would probably be wholly worthy of the atheists' caricature of him as a "sky daddy".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2009, 12:36 PM
Post: #9
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
(01-12-2009 10:29 AM)Anglican Wrote:  This may sound hard, but if God exists there is no point in trying to tell him that you totally disapprove of the way he runs the universe, and think it is a disgrace that he is not more equable in his dealings with human beings. On the other hand, if he doesn't exist, then he hasn't got any actions or atrributes for you to approve or disapprove of.

The idea that God is an American style president, who can be expected to stand for election every four years, and he needn't expect your vote unless he pursues policies you approve of, is a modern fallacy. If he exists, God is God, and, if he exists, he isn't going to go away just because you wished a God like that didn't exist.

To say that you are prepared to believe in God, but only if you are allowed to asign him the attributes you think he ought to have, is a sure fire way to end up with an idol created in your own image. An idol, what is more, who would probably be wholly worthy of the atheists' caricature of him as a "sky daddy".
But it would seem that attributes of genocide were assigned to god by people in history, if the book of Joshua is any clue. It would also seem that some people have the idea that god is on their side in a conflict, an idea put forth throughout the OT. Also appears to have been a human construction? or something that god thought the world wasn't ready for?

I don't agree that a diety needs my or any one else's approval, but if there are contradictions between lovingness, acceptance on one side, and punitiveness and favouratism on the other, then someone has to have it wrong about god.

And I must admit, I don't get American politics, except that it often involves a lot of posturing, bad language and endless news stories.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-12-2009, 05:06 PM (This post was last modified: 01-13-2009 05:10 AM by Pilgrim.)
Post: #10
RE: Inclusiveness and how far out is okay
I suppose it depends upon your view of sin Twenty-Two 20. You might love your child but would you allow them to sit in your living room and put their feet up on the couch if their shoes were covered in dog cacca? I think every parent that cared would insist they leave their shoes outside. If they refused to do so could you reasonably be expected to let them in simply because say, you saw a storm brewing that you knew would get them soaked? I think we seriously underestimate the devastating effects of sin, the absolute and unredemable evil of it or its contaminating potential. Let us then consider that the child has not walked in doggy messages but stepped into a radio active puddle and refuses the decontamination routine to protect itself and others. What then do you do?

"Love is not a feeling, it's an act of your will." Don Francisco.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)