How far will you go to be "INCLUSIVE"?

[Space Commander Travis]

I know there's someone out there who would know the answer to my question. Is there anywhere in the New Testament that clearly gives us the right to judge one another? As far as I know, that action is exclusively reserved for God, but is there any text that specifically gives Christians that right?

Well, there is

Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged

...

[+Paranoid Android]

Beany, it depends on what you mean by "judge". The word is bandied about often but equally often without explanation. To use a mundane example, when I drive my car from my side street home into the main traffic of the highway, I literally "judge" the distance and decide whether it's safe to merge. On a more relevant example, when deciding what action to take in a moral/ethical dilemma, I weigh up the situation and "judge" what I feel is the best solution. This is entirely within scriptural bounds and is in fact encouraged (the word used is along the lines of "discernment" rather than "judgement"). However, there is a step beyond our purview where we move beyond the discernment of an action as beneficial or harmful and into actually condemning someone for choosing that action. We are not given the Right to hold moral supremacy over anyone. No one can judge, except God (notwithstanding the right of a society to judge a criminal based on their laws, this is not the same as personal judgement). The real problem arises when a Christian brings up a matter of "sin" with another - is the person being "discerning" and truly attempting to help someone, or are they "judging" the person by condemning them as sinners. Not an easy one to answer, and it really comes down to motive, which ultimately God knows and will decide what the person truly intended.

In Australia, Christians are (for the most part) quite accepting of those who profess different beliefs, so it's not often that people are judged for believing differently. Different beliefs are what make life... well, life. What one person chooses to do with their life is their choice, whether we agree or disagree is irrelevant, they are entitled to that choice without fear of reprisal.

That doesn't mean everyone will agree with everything someone else does, but out of respect for such decisions we don't condemn them on that basis. At least this is the case as a general rule. As in any society there are exceptions.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Stubbly_Dooright]

It makes me wonder, if anyone came up to me and offered me to challenge their faith, I would say no. Not that I know, that they may have counterpoints to me challenging them, I just wouldn't want them to leave their faith. No, I am also not saying that I have the audacity to think I could, (I don't think I have that ability) I want them to realize that I respect their right to their belief, that I know it's their personal thing and it is what sustains them. As I hope they feel the same way for me. Inclusiveness? Isn't that kind of saying, we're trying to make all religions one religion? Sometimes, it takes awhile for me understand, is it inclusive behavior to be able to live your belief or non-belief, and know the other person has the right to do the same? That's why I love this post:

Here here. In fact the secular structure of Western Governments emerged not out of atheism, but a realisation that different denominations of Christianity had to get along, and the best way to do that is to ensure that the government remains as neutral as possible on religious matters.

I really wish some groups of people in my country remember this, instead of kept insisting that our country was founded on Christianity.

I will stand up for my belief, but I will also stand for others if they are being attacked, judged, and the like. In the end, I just like to think we should thoughtful to each other as people.

[+Paranoid Android]

To answer the OP, I'm reminded of a quote I read some time in recent history. The quote reads:

"Our culture has accepted two great lies. The first if that if you disagree with a person's lifestyle you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate".

I can't recall the source of the quote, though I do recall it to be related to the issue of homosexuality. But I think it works in the broader context of this thread about inclusiveness. I'm willing to accept everyone as exactly who they are. But I'm not going to compromise my beliefs about Christianity (or any other deeply held belief) just to smooth things over. You don't need to compromise your convictions to be understanding that others may not agree. Beyond right and wrong, God or no god, we're all human beings, and for that we all deserve to be treated with respect, no matter what differences we may have.

[Sundew]

Co-existence with others whose beliefs or faiths are different is not nonsense, and in fact, it is being done and has been done throughout history. The continued existence of our species depends on collaboration and cooperation, which is hard to accomplish in an environment tainted by exclusivity.

You misunderstand me, we might be able to coexist as two or more people groups sharing one planet (although history would suggest otherwise). What I said was it is nonsense to try and combine the elements of these various faiths into one all encompassing religion, because their doctrines are polls apart. To do so negates and waters down the various faiths. For instance, how do you combine Hinduism, which is pantheistic with Christianity which is monotheistic, and that's just the beginning of differences.

[+Paranoid Android]

You misunderstand me, we might be able to coexist as two or more people groups sharing one planet (although history would suggest otherwise). What I said was it is nonsense to try and combine the elements of these various faiths into one all encompassing religion, because their doctrines are polls apart. To do so negates and waters down the various faiths. For instance, how do you combine Hinduism, which is pantheistic with Christianity which is monotheistic, and that's just the beginning of differences.

If the differences can't be reconciled then don't try. Celebrate the diversity instead, accept that world views are different. But in the end, "to thine own self be true".

[Sundew]

Here here. In fact the secular structure of Western Governments emerged not out of atheism, but a realisation that different denominations of Christianity had to get along, and the best way to do that is to ensure that the government remains as neutral as possible on religious matters.

Granted, but as you said they were various denominations of one faith, Christianity, not various world religions.

[Sundew]

If the differences can't be reconciled then don't try. Celebrate the diversity instead, accept that world views are different. But in the end, "to thine own self be true".

I would agree, but this started as a thread about the trend to try and combine the various faiths under some ecumenical movement. This does not surprise me, the powers that be are constantly pushing globalization and this is just another tool to do so at a spiritual level.

[+and-then]

To answer the OP, I'm reminded of a quote I read some time in recent history. The quote reads:

"Our culture has accepted two great lies. The first if that if you disagree with a person's lifestyle you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate".

I can't recall the source of the quote, though I do recall it to be related to the issue of homosexuality. But I think it works in the broader context of this thread about inclusiveness. I'm willing to accept everyone as exactly who they are. But I'm not going to compromise my beliefs about Christianity (or any other deeply held belief) just to smooth things over. You don't need to compromise your convictions to be understanding that others may not agree. Beyond right and wrong, God or no god, we're all human beings, and for that we all deserve to be treated with respect, no matter what differences we may have.

Well said. But in a more proactive situation - if you saw a general trend in the world that was unmistakable - of real bias and even violence against Christians due to their "non inclusiveness" would you feel you needed to support their right, or would you simply lie low? This is really what the thread is about. I am curious how many will join in the bashing once it really begins - we are told to expect it, no? He very clearly stated we would be hated for his namesake. And as kind a spin as some here have put on the question about the Grammy's I see it very differently. A person - even from among them - who stood and really proclaimed the gospel to them as fact would have been shouted down and disrespected until they left the stage on their own, or they would have been removed. There are already places in the US where if one does not keep their opinions to themselves about God they will be abused or shouted down. And I'm not talking about harassing or demanding anything from anyone - I'm simply speaking of trying to just share the experience of a personal relationship or just telling the good news of the savior. It is treated as mythological bs and the person looked down upon as an idiot or worse.

So the question remains... when it becomes acceptable to speak about ANY religion except Christianity and when Christians are being pushed out of the public venue - who will stand with them? Who will simply walk away?

[Almagest]

Granted, but as you said they were various denominations of one faith, Christianity, not various world religions.

Because in the United States it was the conflict between the colonial Churches that lead to the First Amendment. Why couldn't that extend to non-Christian faiths, provided that they do not use violence and coercion to subvert Liberal Democracy. Plenty of Muslims, Jews and Hindus have been able to live peacefully under the Christian majority of the United States all because of secular protections.

If the differences can't be reconciled then don't try. Celebrate the diversity instead, accept that world views are different. But in the end, "to thine own self be true".

See, didn't take long for the Atheist and the Christian to find some common ground. It'd be pretty bloody boring if everyone had the same thoughts as I did.

[RavenHawk]

Quite simply, I do try to be all inclusive provided that one’s belief does not demand my death if I don’t see it their way. If that becomes the case, then I can become just as defiant in opposition. I am always open to question my own beliefs for the sake of enlightenment. I believe that all our religions evolved from the same original religion. And religion back then was more of a natural state with GOD. And that GOD, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Jesus, etc. are just different names for the same entity, just different aspects. What’s different is man’s interpretation of whom GOD is and that has varied since the Tower of Babel. I don’t know if we can truly say what that event was, but this was some event that was recorded that occurred maybe 100,000 years ago where all of Mankind was still in one family group. And something happened to disperse this group to the four corners. On talkorigins.org, there is a FAQ that lists some 262 flood stories. I think that this massive amount of similar stories with the lack of other kinds of creation myths is evidence of my assertion. Flooding is definitely something that the early cultures were aware of and feared but there are other disasters besides flooding.

Hinduism has its own Trinity, Brahma = GOD, Shiva = Jesus, Vishnu = Holy Spirit. I think this ties West to East. Jesus is a special case. With Jesus, the concept of Salvation and Redemption comes into play. None of the other GODs offer grace through sacrifice. Not everyone believes that let alone understands it. I don’t think most Christians understand that either. But in order for this to work, it is something that needs to span the ages which will require delving into the dimension of time. What does the term *now* mean in this timeline compared to what *now* mean outside of time? Jesus is an entity *outside* of time and therefore can appear at the same time in all the ages. In history we see several entities with Christ-like attributes. For example: Horus, Zarathustra, Krishna, Buddha, etc. These were probably all different aspects of Jesus.

Jews are waiting for the Messiah to come and Christians wait for the Second Coming. What if this event will be at the same time by the same person? In Islam, you see a similar construct. The Sunni awaits for the Mahdi to reveal himself and the Shiite await his return. And Isa always appears as a companion. What would happen that on Judgment Day that the Mahdi reveals himself as Isa? Since Babel, religion has diverged but with Jesus, Isa, Messiah, Mahdi, religion is now converging but only if the adherents are wise and mature enough to see. It’s up to everyone to come to terms with this. But I think that if Mankind is actively looking for the truth, then it becomes the journey that is important and not the destination.

[RavenHawk]

You misunderstand me, we might be able to coexist as two or more people groups sharing one planet (although history would suggest otherwise). What I said was it is nonsense to try and combine the elements of these various faiths into one all encompassing religion, because their doctrines are polls apart. To do so negates and waters down the various faiths. For instance, how do you combine Hinduism, which is pantheistic with Christianity which is monotheistic, and that's just the beginning of differences.

The core of these religions is very similar but unifying the religions does not mean to homogenize them. A Jew that believes in Jesus is still a Jew. Does such a Jew celebrate Passover or Easter? They are basically for the same reason, that of salvation. Christians do the same with Christmas or is it the Winter Solstice? Both are the Rebirth of Life.

[SpiritWriter]

Islam categorically denies the father and the son - it is anathema to them. John says all who do so are anti christ - and, btw, he wrote that a few hundred years prior to the introduction of Islam. So how, exactly, is it that they are one and the same? How can one reconcile that both doctrines come from the same God? Why would he sow confusion among those he wants as followers - especially to the point where they would kill each other because of his words?

I didn't say they are the same religion, I say they are definitely the same God. You say they can't get there without Jesus, but guess what they pray to God and have relationship with God, whether you like it or agree with it or not. Do you honestly think they are not blessed, do not know God and will go to hell? Jesus may have meant more than what you think he meant and perhaps that notion has been played up to continue the separation, hatred and bigotry of the faiths. Why would a father tell his son he needed to go through his other son to be cool with him? It just like saying your cousin doesn't have the same Grandma as you do just because you have a different daddy, it makes no sense. Also, arguing the bible all the time is not going to prove anything, you must also be willing to think for yourself at times, are you ready to do that? I will tell you right now I don't think Paul had it all figured out.

1 cor 8

Knowledge puffs up while love builds up. 2Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. 3But whoever loves God is known by God.^a

Edited January 28, 2014 by SpiritWriter

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

I'm constantly baffled by the mental gymnastics that go on in the minds of believers. How is "Accept or Reject(and burn forever)" at all reminiscent of Unconditional Love? It seems to me to be a major condition of Gods love that you must accept the human sacrifice that no one asked for.

I'm also curious how you can claim to know anything about the afterlife when all we have to go on is the speculations of schizophrenics and epileptics, and NDE anecdotes.

I've already given a handful of reasons why I cannot accept, strongest of all being the love I bear for my father. He has had a very real presence in my life, and I would rather accept the alternative than force myself to feel something contrary to every fibre of my being for an unsubstantiated promise.

I accept that. I used to think that way, until an unexpected experience changed my belief system. I'm not here to change anyone's mind, and alas, you can never change the way I see the world. After all, we all have our own journeys, and there's more to life than meets the eye, especially when otherworldly "love" that's truly "uncondtional" is involved. On the other hand, Lazarus Syndrome is not the same as NDE (dreaming??).

So, I gathered that you will reject the hand that will reach out to you to take you out of the "outer darkness." Accept or reject, it's really that simple. The "Lord" is there for every human soul, but not the other way around. Like I said, I believe that there are other alternatives, including the deletion of one's "awareness," not just reincarnation. I was in the opposite side of Christianity when this afterlife experience happened, but the "Lord" still showed up; He was not on my list of gods to call.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[hellig heilige]

Accept or reject, it's really that simple. The "Lord" is there for every human soul, but not the other way around.

I get it. Didn't think of it that way..................................................................................... Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[+DieChecker]

Beany, I think part of the problem is the meaning of the word "judge." It is true that God is the final judge: the one who hands out the sentence for crimes committed. The role of a Christian should be more like a referee throwing a flag on a play. In Galatians 5:19-23 there are two lists. One is the works of the flesh, and the other is the fruit of the Spirit. We should be able to discern between the two behaviors, and point out to an individual if they have exhibited the fleshly works. Too often, Christians try to assume the lofty position of God and hand down judgment on a "sinner". Instead, the Christian should exhibit fruit of the Spirit and gently lead the individual away from the fleshly works.

I totally agree. People ask me why I am so happy all the time, and I tell them I have a wonderful job, a wonderful family, my needs all taken care of and God providing all this for me. When they ask if I really believe God provides these for me, I usually tell them about my pre-God life where I struggled over and over just to survive, but when I turned to God I found peace and my personal life improved immediately, my financial life improved immediately and I got a job for twice as much as I was making before. Now, some might argue that it was just the fact I found peace and confidence that caused these improvements, but even if it is placebo, what is there to loose?

Are there Christians who are suffering? Sure. But do I believe that (like in Job) each of us has more to recieve for being a Believer. Yes.

Also note that my finances did not start to improve till I started to tithe. Which seems a contradiction, because here you are with money problems and you're giving even more money away. But, somehow it worked...

Edited January 28, 2014 by DieChecker

[+DieChecker]

I know there's someone out there who would know the answer to my question. Is there anywhere in the New Testament that clearly gives us the right to judge one another? As far as I know, that action is exclusively reserved for God, but is there any text that specifically gives Christians that right? The commandments are very clear & simple in regard to rules of behavior, it's unequivocal and impossible to misinterpret, are there any other passages that speak as clearly in regard to how Christians should hold or treat members of their community? I'm not asking this to be rude, just trying to better understand the issue. And to better understand my mother and how/why she reached the conclusions she did. She was always inclusive, never judged, never said an unkind word, and was guided by her biblical reading & interpretation. She spent her whole life studying the bible, and was one of the biggest influences in my life, not in a religious sense, but in forming a code of ethics.

Just from reading the New Testament, I think that Jesus did not judge people, but allowed them to do what they would. The Rich man came to him and asked if he would go to Heaven and Jesus told him to sell his belongings and that it would be easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle then to get into Heaven. Some call that judging, but I call it "saying it like it is". I also assume that it is somewhat an exaggeration, since Jesus did not require everyone to sell everything they owned and tromp around the countryside begging.

Jesus actually went after the lower class elements, since those are the ones that needed saving.

[+DieChecker]

Also wanted to point out that dispite Jesus saying that He is the only way to Heaven, it does say in Revelation that 144,000 decended from the ancient tribes would be bound up into Heaven. Which some take to mean that along with ALL Christians, 144,000 Jews will enter Jesus's New Earth.

Here also is another thing to think about as far as Judgement...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2020&version=NIV

From the Book of Revelation (20:11)

The Judgment of the Dead

¹¹ Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. ¹² And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. ¹³ The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. ¹⁴ Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. ¹⁵ Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Everyone will be judged based on their lives. I suspect Christians have a leg up in this, but I also believe that those who are generally good people will not go to the Fire.

Christians are saved on Earth, and everyone else has to wait till Judgement Day to know if they are saved. That is how read that.

Which may not even break the "Only through Jesus" rule, because as far as the Bible states, it could be Jesus sitting on that white throne handing out salvation.

[+DieChecker]

I'll try to sum it up without going too far off topic.

• Firstly the authentic character of Jesus of Nazareth has been greatly obscured by the writers of the New Testament. There are numerous contradictions, and a particularly glaring fabrication in the story of Nativity, which can't decide whether Jesus was born in 4BC or 6/7AD. The major concoctions in the tale are the Roman census(which did occur in Syria and Judaea) and the bizarre practise of having people return to their ancestral homes to be counted. It's how Joseph and Mary, who live in Galiliee, wind up in the town of the prophesied birth of the messiah despite the fact that the census was conducted for tax purposes, and it would make no sense whatsoever to count those who weren't paying taxes in that province. All of this is a later insertion to make the man Jesus fit more closely to the prophecy. This includes the virgin birth, an idea that I find absolutely disgusting, that a woman can only carry the Son of God if she hasn't been defiled. Personally I think vaginas are wonderful things and I'm proud to have entered the world through one. Not so much in Catholicism, for example, which invented the immaculate conception of Mary to make her even purer than your regular filthy old woman.
  
• If you go by the words of Christ alone, it is readily apparent that he doesn't stand for the things Christians say that he does. He says he comes not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. He says turn the other cheek, yet drives Money changers from the temple with a whip. The dual pillars of Love and Family values are undermined when he instructs his disciples that they cannot be true disciples unless they hate their family and their own lives, which I find to be a particularly nasty and conveniently overlooked bit of scripture. From his words alone it is suggested that his coming was intended for Jews primarily and gentiles secondarily, and even goes so far to refer to a gentile woman as a 'dog eating crumbs from its masters table.' War, violence, filial and self loathing, racial supremacy, all of these things run counter to my system of values.
  
• Jesus chides the only rational Disciple, Thomas, for wishing to see his wounds before accepting the Resurrection, saying “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Blind acceptance of authority helped facilitate the worst atrocities of the twentieth centuries, perpetuated by both religious and non-religious entities. To name a few - Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, and Imperial Japan. I fail to see how someone is blessed for possessing a trait so dangerous to human prosperity and survival.
  
• Most strikingly to me is the fact that Jesus didn't foresee a world without slavery, made no statements against it, and told slaves to endure their lot. Surely God Incarnate would have known that the institution would have been abolished in the 19th century, yet he has the classical period world view of an ordered cosmos where everyone is consigned to their lot in life and speaks as if that order would still be in place during the Second Coming. Well if this was all part of God's plan all along, why not make abolition a key doctrine in Christianity? What of all the slaves who died faithless due to the harsh treatment of their masters and the silent response to their prayers, who based on Jesus's own doctrine would have been confined to eternal hell fire for the sin of not having a limitless tolerance for suffering?
  

Now to try and steer this back on topic. This is just a glimpse of my values, which I'll share freely with those who ask, because I'm dedicated to the idea of the Socratic Dialogue. To me conversation is the best way to bridge two people, the longer they talk the more likely they are to find common ground. At the very least they can walk away with a better understanding of one another, and for that reason I'm for inclusiveness in public discourse, except for the previously mentioned cases.

I think the response would be boredom. The Gospel's answer to human suffering is terribly inadequate; Endure this life in humility under God and you'll inherit his kingdom. We see people suffering from starvation, exploitation, abuse, rape and murder on a daily basis and we need more than the unsubstantiated promise of an afterlife to alleviate that. To me that is a defeatist view of the world. Those things can be overcome through human will and co-operation. And personally, I think Slaughterhouse-Five has more humanity in it than the Bible.

However, if I was at an event and someone wanted to give a reading from scripture I wouldn't bat an eye. There are times where it's appropriate for me to be an argumentative jerk and there are times when it's not. It would be downright disrespectful of me to make a single noise during the reading, not only to the speaker but to those in the audience who wanted to listen.

DAMN!!! You have a link for your Four Points?

Thomas should have believed, as he'd seen several other people raised from the Dead in person. Jesus constantly was chiding his Disciples. Even the night he was taken he said "Why are you sleeping?", because he had told them to Pray, and even as Jesus prepared to be taken and crucified the Disciples were goofing off.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2022&version=NIV

Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives

³⁹ Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. ⁴⁰ On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” ⁴¹ He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, ⁴² “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” ⁴³ An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. ⁴⁴ And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.^[c]

⁴⁵ When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. ⁴⁶ “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”

[Marcus Aurelius]

Anyone who denies the father and the son is an anti Christ spirit. Of course the Jews deny Christ. But the Jews do not attempt to extinguish people of other faiths. And my point in this thread is to explore how far a person would go to stand firm in their faith - not how far they will bend to accommodate the belief of others. Your need to "reach across the aisle" is a perfect example of Chrislam. I must ask - do you believe that Jesus is the way, truth and life, and that no man comes to the father but through him?

I see that there are several other good points of discussion on this thread that I might want to respond to in a separate post; for the moment however, And then; I would like to take the time to continue our discussion and respond to you directly. First of all, I want to make it absolutely clear that in no way am I attacking you; I don't want this to at all seem like I'm somehow ganging up against you or any such thing. Speaking very plainly, I respect your beliefs and I very much admire your convictions. And I see you as a sibling in Christ; though our opinions may differ. I am merely sharing my opinion with you and am trying to provide you with an alternative point of view. Now, onto the heart of the matter:

"But the Jews do not attempt to extinguish people of other faiths."

No, presently they do not. But they crucified Christ and persecuted the early church. If we are being intellectually honest with ourselves; were it not for the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 it is likely that those persecutions would have continued. We have to look at the whole historical perspective. Sadly, there was much animosity between Christians and Jews throughout the centuries too. The anti-Jewish sentiment of much of the history of Christendom is equally shameful. But see? Even in the distant past we see the dire need for ecumenical spirit.

" Your need to "reach across the aisle" is a perfect example of Chrislam. I must ask - do you believe that Jesus is the way, truth and life, and that no man comes to the father but through him?"

Yes, I DO believe that; but I INTERPRET it in a different way than you do. I see Jesus Christ as part of the Triune Godhead; thus if one is earnestly and sincerely praying to God; that same Triune Godhead will hear that prayer, even if it is not directed TO Jesus Christ. In short, I believe those who are earnestly and sincerely praying to God but do not personally know Jesus Christ are still in fact praying to Him; though INDIRECTLY. They may be calling God by a different name from within a different "religious system" but there is only ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS, thus, OUR God is hearing and receiving those prayers. I do not believe that the prayers of the sincere are simply floating through the ether unheard or that they are somehow praying to the devil as some hardcore fundamentalists seem to imply.

In addition, I take Romans 2:14 as evidence of this; and that our God is more 'inclusive' then many of us would readily think. "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law" (ESV). The way I exegete this text is that it boils down to the power of intention. Though someone may not know our God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the greatest of Special Revelation; they can follow that same God INDIRECTLY through General Revelation; that is to say by following the Law that is imprinted upon the human heart. This Law is written upon our hearts in the form of our conscience; and is thus manifested in nearly all the great religions of the world. When one looks into the heart of Scriptures from these other major faiths; one can easily find the same ESSENCE....which is to love God with all our heart and mind and/or to love our neighbor as ourselves. If, then, by this power of intention they are fulfilling the very Letter of the Law, and the greatest of the Commandments; are we so arrogant as to presume that God would condemn such people? Will He damn people, in essence, simply because they get a name wrong or fail a theology exam?

I am not alone in this view. Even the great C.S. Lewis, who would be a conservative by your standards once wrote: "I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know Him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ." (This quote is from Yours, Jack. A selection of letters from C.S. Lewis) When he says dimly present, that is precisely what I mean. Christ is present in General Revelation; in what is true and good in all the great religions.

So yes, I do believe that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life; but I believe one can follow that way indirectly. Christ is the Door of salvation for all of humanity; but I believe that door is left slightly ajar for those who follow Him by way of intention and General Revelation.

Islam categorically denies the father and the son - it is anathema to them. John says all who do so are anti christ - and, btw, he wrote that a few hundred years prior to the introduction of Islam. So how, exactly, is it that they are one and the same? How can one reconcile that both doctrines come from the same God? Why would he sow confusion among those he wants as followers - especially to the point where they would kill each other because of his words?

No, they don't deny the Father. Allah is simply the Arabic word for God. They believe in God the Father; but they reject our Trinitarian notion of God. And if you study church history this is largely so because by the time Islam had come onto the scene, the Trinitarian doctrine had not yet been fully hammered out by the Church. It was simply unintelligible to the early Muslims. They didn't understand it. Unfortunately, many Christians didn't either. Think of all the Trinitarian disputes; such as the Modalists. The Muslims, not understanding our theology of the time mistakenly felt that Christians worshiped three Gods; whereas theirs is a fierce monotheism. This misunderstanding has continued all the way down to the present day. For example, I am friends with a Muslim who, once when we were discussing our respective faiths; she asked me about the Trinity. She didn't understand how I could claim to be a monotheist and yet worship 3 Gods? She said it seemed like a deviation from the Abrahamic (and thus Islamic) understanding of monotheism. I delicately explained to her that we believe God is One in Three Persons. At it's root here; what we are dealing with is a theological misunderstanding between the two religions that has carried on for centuries. But keep in mind that the Holy Koran, from it's perspective, does not state that Christians will be damned because of their error. It is perhaps 'more inclusive' than most readily imagine. "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and and does good, they have their reward with the Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (Holy Koran 2:62)

Well said. But in a more proactive situation - if you saw a general trend in the world that was unmistakable - of real bias and even violence against Christians due to their "non inclusiveness" would you feel you needed to support their right, or would you simply lie low? This is really what the thread is about. I am curious how many will join in the bashing once it really begins - we are told to expect it, no? He very clearly stated we would be hated for his namesake. And as kind a spin as some here have put on the question about the Grammy's I see it very differently. A person - even from among them - who stood and really proclaimed the gospel to them as fact would have been shouted down and disrespected until they left the stage on their own, or they would have been removed. There are already places in the US where if one does not keep their opinions to themselves about God they will be abused or shouted down. And I'm not talking about harassing or demanding anything from anyone - I'm simply speaking of trying to just share the experience of a personal relationship or just telling the good news of the savior. It is treated as mythological bs and the person looked down upon as an idiot or worse.

So the question remains... when it becomes acceptable to speak about ANY religion except Christianity and when Christians are being pushed out of the public venue - who will stand with them? Who will simply walk away?

Even though by now you would probably classify me as a 'big liberal' and might even question whether I am Christian at all; I would most certainly stand with them AS one of them. Christ has shown us that we must never be afraid to stand up for our faith. I know my efforts to become a pastor, may in the future make me unpopular; and as you say could even lead to my own persecution. So be it. Since I accepted Christ into my heart; my life is no longer my own. The good life that I enjoy now is simply on loan to me from God; He can do with it as He wishes. I believe that the things of this world are transitory, impermanent; and following the will of God, that which is eternal and does not pass away is the way to live; to bring a sense of that eternity into the present moment. If that day should come, I would readily stand with you (even though we disagree over fleeting matters) and all true Christians. We should never fear the things that are passing away.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Quite simply, I do try to be all inclusive provided that one's belief does not demand my death if I don't see it their way. If that becomes the case, then I can become just as defiant in opposition. I am always open to question my own beliefs for the sake of enlightenment. I believe that all our religions evolved from the same original religion. And religion back then was more of a natural state with GOD. And that GOD, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, Jesus, etc. are just different names for the same entity, just different aspects. What's different is man's interpretation of whom GOD is and that has varied since the Tower of Babel. I don't know if we can truly say what that event was, but this was some event that was recorded that occurred maybe 100,000 years ago where all of Mankind was still in one family group. And something happened to disperse this group to the four corners. On talkorigins.org, there is a FAQ that lists some 262 flood stories. I think that this massive amount of similar stories with the lack of other kinds of creation myths is evidence of my assertion. Flooding is definitely something that the early cultures were aware of and feared but there are other disasters besides flooding.

Hinduism has its own Trinity, Brahma = GOD, Shiva = Jesus, Vishnu = Holy Spirit. I think this ties West to East. Jesus is a special case. With Jesus, the concept of Salvation and Redemption comes into play. None of the other GODs offer grace through sacrifice. Not everyone believes that let alone understands it. I don't think most Christians understand that either. But in order for this to work, it is something that needs to span the ages which will require delving into the dimension of time. What does the term *now* mean in this timeline compared to what *now* mean outside of time? Jesus is an entity *outside* of time and therefore can appear at the same time in all the ages. In history we see several entities with Christ-like attributes. For example: Horus, Zarathustra, Krishna, Buddha, etc. These were probably all different aspects of Jesus.

Jews are waiting for the Messiah to come and Christians wait for the Second Coming. What if this event will be at the same time by the same person? In Islam, you see a similar construct. The Sunni awaits for the Mahdi to reveal himself and the Shiite await his return. And Isa always appears as a companion. What would happen that on Judgment Day that the Mahdi reveals himself as Isa? Since Babel, religion has diverged but with Jesus, Isa, Messiah, Mahdi, religion is now converging but only if the adherents are wise and mature enough to see. It's up to everyone to come to terms with this. But I think that if Mankind is actively looking for the truth, then it becomes the journey that is important and not the destination.

RavenHawk, I actually like this post a lot. It highlights a lot of the similarities between the religions, and by in large I find myself in agreement with this position. I have thought of the above things in my own studies in comparative religion. Even Muslims believe that Jesus will return in the final conflict between Good and Evil. Like you, I think to myself; are they all not pointing to the same thing? The eschatology of the Abrahmic faiths is eerily similar. I also like your point about the notion of a Hindu Trinity. Many Hindus would actually consider themselves 'monotheistic' in this vein. To add to that; look at all of the similarities between Krishna and the Christ. Their stories are similar and many believe the Sanskrit word for Krishna, in effect, means the same thing as Christ.

But more to the point: what I find interesting is that in all these religions; in one way or another they ALL say that man is out of sorts with himself and/or his relationship with God has been blown off course. Buddhists speak of Samsara, Hindus Maya, Christians, Jews and Muslims, sin. In essence, they all say in one way or another that man has given into delusion and has lost his true nature or true self. Much like our conception of the Fall. Then they all map out a road back. That is why I have said in other posts that the Christian God I pray to could very easily be operating within these various "systems" by helping to chart a course back to Himself and back to our true nature; our true selves.

I know such a statement must sound gnostic to some of my Christian brethren; but again I say; has God placed the limitations on us; or have we placed limitations on God?

Once more, I believe that Christ is the Door to salvation; that in Him is the fullness and perfection of Revelation....but at the same time I cannot dismiss the highly possible fact that God could be working in these other, less complete systems as my previous post above demonstrates.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[GoldenWolf]

Just from reading the New Testament, I think that Jesus did not judge people, but allowed them to do what they would. The Rich man came to him and asked if he would go to Heaven and Jesus told him to sell his belongings and that it would be easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle then to get into Heaven. Some call that judging, but I call it "saying it like it is". I also assume that it is somewhat an exaggeration, since Jesus did not require everyone to sell everything they owned and tromp around the countryside begging.

Jesus actually went after the lower class elements, since those are the ones that needed saving.

Read Matthew 23.

So the middle and upper classes didn't need saving? Sounds like prejudice to me.

[+DieChecker]

Read Matthew 23.

So the middle and upper classes didn't need saving? Sounds like prejudice to me.

You make a good point. Jesus didn't judge individual people, but he did judge Society and the classes of people who ruled. Also, when Jesus met any of the upper class he would simply offer them the same choices as he did everyone else, and some took him up on it.

Mathew 23:23

23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: ² “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. ³ So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. ⁴ They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

⁵ “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries^[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; ⁶ they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; ⁷ they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

Does that NOT read just like our Federal Congressmen?

[Beany]

Granted, but as you said they were various denominations of one faith, Christianity, not various world religions.

Let's not forget people of the Jewish faith.

[Beany]

Well said. But in a more proactive situation - if you saw a general trend in the world that was unmistakable - of real bias and even violence against Christians due to their "non inclusiveness" would you feel you needed to support their right, or would you simply lie low? This is really what the thread is about. I am curious how many will join in the bashing once it really begins - we are told to expect it, no? He very clearly stated we would be hated for his namesake. And as kind a spin as some here have put on the question about the Grammy's I see it very differently. A person - even from among them - who stood and really proclaimed the gospel to them as fact would have been shouted down and disrespected until they left the stage on their own, or they would have been removed. There are already places in the US where if one does not keep their opinions to themselves about God they will be abused or shouted down. And I'm not talking about harassing or demanding anything from anyone - I'm simply speaking of trying to just share the experience of a personal relationship or just telling the good news of the savior. It is treated as mythological bs and the person looked down upon as an idiot or worse.

So the question remains... when it becomes acceptable to speak about ANY religion except Christianity and when Christians are being pushed out of the public venue - who will stand with them? Who will simply walk away?

Christianity isn't the only religion that takes it's knocks. Look at Jewish history for an example. We don't need to speculate and supply answers that may or may not be true. There are plenty of historical examples that can be used. And let's not forget those unpleasant Christians who insist in the supremacy of their beliefs, disrespect the beliefs of others, and attempt to pass legislation that institutionalizes their religious beliefs while ignoring the rights of those who have a different faith, and are quite vocal in their criticism, judgments, and denigration of the minority. Because Christianity is overwhelmingly the dominant religion in the US.

And I am hated by some of my own family members for being non-Christian, which seems to me to be a very un-Christianlike attitude on their part. I'm happy they found something that sustains them, just get out of my face by constantly telling me I'm going to hell or treating me like a 5 year old who doesn't have the ability to reason or think for myself instead of the elder that I am with far more life's experience, education, and knowledge than they have acquired during their relatively young lives.. I tell them I'm a pagan and they wait for my head to spin around and demons dancing at my feet. Waah! A mini-rant. Sorry. But it was kinda cathartic.

Edited January 29, 2014 by Beany