Religious truth and exclusiveness, They can't all be right...

[OrangeEmpire]

One of the least popular features of the Christian religion is its claim to exlusive religious truth. Christ's infamous claim in John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the father except through me" is interpreted by many to mean that Christianity is the only true religion and that others are false.

Christianity is criticized for holding this view. Isn't it arrogant to claim exlusive truth? Doesn't this prove that Christians are intolerant bigots? Aren't all religions equal? Or at the very least, don't all at least have some part of the truth? Isn't it a bit like the story of the blind men and the elephant? What's wrong with simply allowing all people to find whatever religion (or lack thereof) "works for them?"

Except that ... what if the varying religious traditions all hold very different and in some ways mutually exlusive beliefs, especially about the nature of God, the afterlife and other vital spiritual issues. Islam is completely monotheistic while Christianity believes in a trinity who are one while Hinduism believes in many Gods and (some kinds of) Buddhism in none at all. Some eastern religions believe in reincarnation while the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition believes only in one life followed by judgement. They can't all be right.

Religious relativism would make sense if your relationship with God was all about you. But if all people's religious choices are made valid simply by the making of the choice, doesn't this mean we're sort of "creating" God? And what sort of power could such a God possibly have? By contrast, if there actually is a God, wouldn't it make sense that this God would have a particular identity? Wouldn't God possess certain qualities and lack others, regardless of what our opinions of those qualities are? I think that when you choose to believe in a power greater then yourself, worship becomes a matter of figuring out what the nature of that diety is rather than simply "choosing what works for you."

As such, I think post modern criticisms of Christianity on the basis of religious arrogance lack validity. What do you think?

*You didn't know that I had it in me, huh?*

 

[therealUT]

That is pretty deep, OE.

I believe people who hold exclusive views about their religion are missing the fundamental point of all religions. The base of all religions seems to be that one should work to emulate their god or gods. A common trait possessed by the highest god of each major religion is a sense of justice and love. Love and justice are both very much based on building relationships with your fellow man, hence, they are inclusive traits. Therefore, all those who actually seek the deepest wisdom in their own religions, whatever it may be, will find themselves most accepting of others who offer worship in a different manner and to a different god(s).

The problem is though, most people in this world tend to be very lazy. They do not put forth the effort to look beyond the words and find true meaning in them.

 

[volinbham]

The Hebrews were the first (or the first major group) to conceptualize one God (Yahweh)-- a God that not only created earth and man but existed independently of his creations. Man was created in his image as a companion; not as a slave for the God(s). Yahweh created man that was able to know good from evil (as did he) and man moved in a moral world set by Yahweh's own nature (giver of laws). Only Yahweh was just; man-made laws might or might not reflect His will but He was the only author of right and justice.

Other views had multiple gods and recognized that other groups had other gods. In effect, we have ours, you have yours and we hope ours smites (love that word) yours!

The Hebrews rejected the notion of multiple gods in favor of the one God.

Here you see the seeds of exclusive religious truth.

(paraphrased from The History of the World - J.M. Roberts)

 

[Lexvol]

The theology behind the ressurection leaves no room for pluralism. The problem comes with the evangelical church's inability to accept the fact that people may not necessarily be bound by decisions they make on earth. Surely they are predisposed to those decisions, but they are not bound.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Where is OWB when you need him!

 

[jdsa]

Religious relativism would make sense if your relationship with God was all about you. But if all people's religious choices are made valid simply by the making of the choice, doesn't this mean we're sort of "creating" God? And what sort of power could such a God possibly have? By contrast, if there actually is a God, wouldn't it make sense that this God would have a particular identity? Wouldn't God possess certain qualities and lack others, regardless of what our opinions of those qualities are? I think that when you choose to believe in a power greater then yourself, worship becomes a matter of figuring out what the nature of that diety is rather than simply "choosing what works for you."

As such, I think post modern criticisms of Christianity on the basis of religious arrogance lack validity. What do you think?

*You didn't know that I had it in me, huh?*

I think you're confusing faith and reason a bit here, like good ol' St. Anselm's proof of the existence of God.

From a purely rational point of view I don't think you can privilege one religion over another, because there's no scientific proof of any metaphysical reality (I'm sure someone will dispute this in some way, but basically, I just can't be convinced bigfoot exists no matter how many blurry videos are out there). For me that's the basis of a relativistic approach to religions.

Moreover, it kind of defeats the point of faith which requires at least a little suspension of disbelief. So as confusing as it may be any member of any religion kind has to perform a balancing act of knowing/believing and accepting that ultimately one cannot know. Pragmatically, I suppose this distinction is merely a matter of manners, but then those that question Christianity question means more than anything else.

(as an aside, I'll just throw out there that I believe any sort of proof of god would eliminate the possibility of free will.)

Hope that's not to deep. . . or too simple either.

 

[dan4vols]

I have some simplistic questions for everyone.....many who have posted this thread thusfar are obviously educated, well read, and sober. So....What was before God said ''Let there be light''....Where did God come from?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Where did God come from?

Well.........No where, he always was and always will be.

(as an aside, I'll just throw out there that I believe any sort of proof of god would eliminate the possibility of free will.)

Hope that's not to deep. . . or too simple either.

Free will, another fine debate.....

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I think you're confusing faith and reason a bit here, like good ol' St. Anselm's proof of the existence of God.

From a purely rational point of view I don't think you can privilege one religion over another, because there's no scientific proof of any metaphysical reality (I'm sure someone will dispute this in some way, but basically, I just can't be convinced bigfoot exists no matter how many blurry videos are out there). For me that's the basis of a relativistic approach to religions.

That this is irrelevant is precisely the point I've been trying to make. Sure everybody thinks they're right. But it ultimately comes down to a positive or a negative. A one or a zero. It was or it wasn't. Jesus Christ either was the son of God, in which case the Christians are right and everybody else wrong or he wasn't the son of God, in which case the Christians are WRONG, whatever they may otherwise believe, and someone else is right.

Faith is belief without proof. That's it. It can be a belief based on a religious standard, or a belief based on circumstantial evidence both of which apply here. When we talk of an "immortal soul" it goes directly to our society's cultural mythos. The idea of soul is based in a spiritual belief of something "beyond" us. And that spiritual belief means there is some basis of a greater power or other worldly force.

 

[therealUT]

I have some simplistic questions for everyone.....many who have posted this thread thusfar are obviously educated, well read, and sober. So....What was before God said ''Let there be light''....Where did God come from?

Regardless of what you believe, you have to come to a logical point in which you must accept that there was some form, being, or energy that is supernatural which was the forebearer of the universe. In nature, something cannot come from nothing, hence the supernatural entity. Many call that entity God, Yahweh, Allah, others simply refer to it as an ever existing energy. Whatever you preference, to deny the existence of the supernatural in life is actually irrational and illogical.