Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

[JM1]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

"The Church is (in its way) as indispensable as Christ for man's salvation"

Angelfire, are you saying here that Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient ?

Another question. What do you think of purgatory ? Seems like another route to salvation "outside of the church".

[ohliz]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

LIZ:If their religions, as tea pointed out, involve raping young girls or genital mutilation or human sacrifice or this type of thing, then I do have a problem with those actions - but not the religion itself, necessarily.
ANGEL:
On the surface, that statement of yours appears to be an example of the new tolerance. Are you saying that you have "a problem" with the act of genital mutilation but not necessarily the belief system that permits/condones it?

No, I mean I do not condone it, I think it is wrong, I myself would never do it and I would stop someone else from doing it wherever I have the power to do so.

What I meant by not necessarily having a problem with the relgion itself is that though some adherents of some religions may do these things, that does not mean that the religion on a whole is bad. *Some* Christians slaughtered many people during the Crusades, this does not mean Christianity itself is bad.

You wrote in rebuttal:
I must disagree with this premise. My definition of tolerance is very much like what this quote says it "once" was. I cannot speak for others who consider themselves tolerant. .

I strongly believe that your definition (the old definition of tolerance) does not prevail today in society at large, in our classrooms, media outlets, and, amazingly, even among some religious. Christians in general, however, do subscribe to the 'old tolerance.'

AS I said, I cannot speak for society at large, only for myself.

Let's start with homosexual activists and their sympathizers.

Better start a new thread for this - way outside what JM1 is asking for.

Next, abortion.

I believe the last time this was discussed the thread was locked down by the moderator who obviously does not want this discussed here, or at least not argued about. So start a new thread if you like and I will respond there, if JM1 thinks we shouldn't I'm sure we will hear.

I made a generalized statement that, I believe, applies today to a large (maybe majority) segment of our population.

That's a pretty broad statement to make. Have you a sociological study to cite, or any eveidence for that belief? THe wrold in general looks pretty intolerant to me right now, what with Hindus killing muslims in retaliation for muslims killing Hindus (see yesterday's news), Muslims thinking it's their duty to kill Christians, Christians thinking was on Islam is a good way to deal with terrorists, etc.

To repeat, no longer are morals and values black and white. Now everything is gray. And we must tolerate all gray.

I agree with this position ot apoint. Black and white allows no room (or tolerance) for middle ground. And your black and white will likely look very different from someone else's black and white.

You sited a particular case (your father) where my generalized statement does not apply.

Correct because I can talk about his beliefs with authority. And mine. The beliefs of most others are outside my realm of personal knowledge.

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Liz

[ohliz]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

The new paganism is the virtual divinization of man, the religion of man as the new god. One of its popular slogans, repeated often, is “the infinite value of the human person.” Its aim is building a heaven on earth, a secular salvation. Another term for the new paganism is secular humanism.

I would disagree with this definition of paganism.

When I think of paganism, I think of people who worship the goddess, or earth/nature, or mother nature, like that. They're certainly around too, never went away as far as I know.

This has all changed. The new paganism is situational. It says we are the makers of moral values. It not only finds the moral law written in the human heart but also by the human heart. It acknowledges no divine revelation, thus no one's values can be judged to be wrong. Everyone is right.

I disagree....there are certain morals we can all agree on, I think. For example, every society in the world, in history, has had some kind of incest taboo. Who was considered taboo has varied somewhat from society to society but the concept of some family memebers being off limits for marriage or procreation is universal.

Now I'd say we can all agree that killing is wrong but we seem to make exceptions. For example, some people think the state killing a person who has killed someone else is OK, even right. Many think killing in self-defense is OK. Many think killing to protect oil or territory is OK.

I guess my point is, one can have morals without being religious. The golden rule - treat people as you would like to be treated - are words most people can live by, and live peacefully with, no matter what religion they are part of, if any.

[Dyoll]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

We should define religious tolerance as respecting the right of others to hold a particular religious viewpoint, and not as giving approbation to the various beliefs and lifestyles, etc. I am not unmindful that some religious persuasions, Christianity among them, make an exclusive claim on salvation. I think it is perfectly fine for Christians to feel this way about their religion. Muslims also believe that salvation is found only in Islam - Mohhamed being its prophet.

The notion, particularly among Christians, that tolerance should not mean giving validity to every religious body or accepting other religions as equally true is troubling. Implicit in that view is a moral superiority that may not be intellectually tenable. This is not to say that one cannot make a moral judgement about a system of belief - for example to boldly declare that, under any standard, human sacrifice is wrong. I'm not talking about these extreme practices. Rather, I'm refering to the theological nuts and bolts. The trouble is that other religious traditions view Christianity as being based on intellectual quicksands. For many people, the idea of religion is anti-intellectual, medieval/superstitious, and downright silly.

So, whenever I'm engaged in any discussion of religious tolerance, I proceed from the prizm of human rights. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religious association is a fundamental human right inherent to personhood. Each person has the right to choose a religious viewpoint that gives meaning to his/her life. And since rights imply duties, others have a duty to respect that right. As long as religious practices do not violate human rights, I have no problems whatsoever with ANY reliogious viewpoint.

I suppose it is perfectly within the bounds of free speech to criticise another religion, to make value judgements, to say that all religions other than Christianity are false. Nothing wrong with that. Other religions say that about Christianity all the time. The problem is that this kind of religious superiority and a failure to recognize the rights of others to a differing view (intolerance) has lead to unspeakable attrocities by the three major religious traditions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[ohliz]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

So, whenever I'm engaged in any discussion of religious tolerance, I proceed from the prizm of human rights. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religious association is a fundamental human right inherent to personhood. Each person has the right to choose a religious viewpoint that gives meaning to his/her life. And since rights imply duties, others have a duty to respect that right. As long as religious practices do not violate human rights, I have no problems whatsoever with ANY religious viewpoint.

clap clap!!!

We should define religious tolerance as respecting the right of others to hold a particular religious viewpoint, and not as giving approbation to the various beliefs and lifestyles, etc.

I would love to continue the discussion with the understanding that this is what is meant by religious tolerance.

[img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Liz

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Ohliz:

I don't claim any special knowledge of Paganism or the various forms of Paganism that may exist. However, I do know that Pagans are followers of polytheistic beliefs as in ancient Rome. That was the point of my saying that man is the new god and that leads to the concept that there are many gods both human and non human (nature, animals etc.) From your own definition, I think you would agree?

You state:
I disagree....there are certain morals we can all agree on, I think.

You then site incest as an example of a taboo that we "can all agree on." Let's change it to pedophilia instead of incest. Would you agree that that is an intolerable behavior that we all can agree on?

There are two things I would like to say. First, does something we "can all agree on" determine if an act is morally wrong or right. In other words, does the majority decide good and evil actions or is there some other determining factor?

Second, even pedophilia or incest is not something that we all agree on. You and I can agree on it. The majority in the West can agree on it. But, not all cultures today or through History feel the same as we do.

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html

I wrote:
I made a generalized statement that, I believe, applies today to a large (maybe majority) segment of our population.

You responded:
That's a pretty broad statement to make. Have you a sociological study to cite, or any eveidence for that belief?

I made the reference somewhere above but here it is again:
The New Tolerance by Josh Mcdowell and Bob Hostetler 1998, Tyndale House Publishers. Numerous citations are provided.

You wrote:
I guess my point is, one can have morals without being religious.

Then you sited the "golden rule." My question is where do those morals come from? Furthermore, where does the "golden rule" come from? And, if morals and the golden rule come from the same source, then who has the right to deny some of the other beliefs that also come from that source? Do we all have the right to pick and choose whatever we personally feel is right? If we do then someone may decide that what you have chosen as moral may not be their cup of tea and vice versa

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Dyoll:

You wrote:

The notion, particularly among Christians, that tolerance should not mean giving validity to every religious body or accepting other religions as equally true is troubling. Implicit in that view is a moral superiority that may not be intellectually tenable.

I believe Christianity is true and intellectually tenable and I (maybe some others too) am prepared to defend my belief if you're interested.

Rather, I'm refering to the theological nuts and bolts. The trouble is that other religious traditions view Christianity as being based on intellectual quicksands. For many people, the idea of religion is anti-intellectual, medieval/superstitious, and downright silly.

Bring it on. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

JM1

You wrote:
Angelfire, are you saying here that Christ's death on the cross was not sufficient ?

One drop of His blood would have been "sufficient." One tear from His eye as he lay in the cold smelly manger of Bethlehem would have been "sufficient."

Before getting into "Purgation" I would like to study at length the issue of authority and the Church.

Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them . . . ” We know that the church Jesus founded was more than just an invisible communion of believers who were free to organize themselves however they saw fit. Christ gave His church a visible, authoritative hierarchy. It was a kingdom, not a democracy, and it was ruled by the apostles (and chief among them, Simon Peter) who were given the authority to make binding rules. We also have seen that believers were to submit their disputes to the judgment of the church, and to “listen to the church,” or else be regarded as pagans and tax collectors. This authority extended, not just to personal disputes, but also to doctrinal disputes. An example of this is found in Acts 15, where the Bible tells us:

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them (Acts 15:1-2).

Obviously, one side or the other here was teaching a false doctrine. If a dispute like that broke out today, how would it be resolved?

Unfortunately, it could not be. For many denominations there is no mechanism for resolving doctrinal disputes. Each side would probably end up forming yet another denomination, and the false doctrine would become institutionalized and perpetuated. That has happened thousands upon thousands of times already. How did Paul and Barnabas solve this problem? Did they conduct a Bible study and rely on the individual guidance of the Holy Spirit? Let’s see:

So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question (Acts 15:3).

In other words, the matter was referred to the visible church hierarchy in Jerusalem for a ruling. The apostles and elders held a council at Jerusalem to discuss this issue, and their deliberations are described in detail in Acts 15:4-29. They decided that it was contrary to the faith to insist that Gentiles be circumcised. Instead, they issued a command: “You are to abstain . . .” (Acts 15:29). Once the council reached its decision, the debate was over. From that point on, it was outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy to require Gentile converts to be circumcised, and that decision was binding on all Christians everywhere:

As they traveled from town to town, they delivered the decisions reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to obey (Acts 16:4, emphasis added.).

There was no room for individual judgment here. The hierarchy had ruled, and the people were expected to obey. The hierarchy is the visible Church.

[ohliz]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

However, I do know that Pagans are followers of polytheistic beliefs as in ancient Rome. That was the point of my saying that man is the new god and that leads to the concept that there are many gods both human and non human (nature, animals etc.) From your own definition, I think you would agree?

Well, the forms of paganism I am familiar with do not elevate any man to the level of a goddess. I guess I think of Wiccans whe nI think of pagans, and they're about ONE goddess, not several gods and goddesses. I suppose there are any number of "pagans", which term, I think, simply means:

"One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion. "

I see "especailly" there (that came from dictionary.com, FYI), so often pagans are polytheistic but not always.

You state:
I disagree....there are certain morals we can all agree on, I think.

You then site incest as an example of a taboo that we "can all agree on." Let's change it to pedophilia instead of incest. Would you agree that that is an intolerable behavior that we all can agree on?

No. Or rather, I think we can all agree that sex with children is a bad thing but when does a child become an adult? That cultures definitely disagree on. Myself, I think 18ish, I think the legal age of marriage in most US states is 16, many cultures marry their children at 12 or even younger.

There are two things I would like to say. First, does something we "can all agree on" determine if an act is morally wrong or right. In other words, does the majority decide good and evil actions or is there some other determining factor?

I guess the majority must agree on it in order to ENFORCE that morality, but no, I don't think a majority must agree in order for something to be right or wrong.

Second, even pedophilia or incest is not something that we all agree on. You and I can agree on it. The majority in the West can agree on it. But, not all cultures today or through History feel the same as we do.

Well there you go, I guess there is NOTHING we can all agree on. Do you think it's possible to make everyone agree on any set of rules or morals then?

I made the reference somewhere above but here it is again:
The New Tolerance by Josh Mcdowell and Bob Hostetler 1998, Tyndale House Publishers. Numerous citations are provided.

..but I can't see the citations/research that they may have done unless I buy the book, apparently, as I cannot find anything other than synopses online.

Amazon has somme reviews though, here's snippet from a fan of the book:

Since I live in L.A., I see the "new tolerance" first hand. From having to "tolerate" illegal aliens and them literally invading our country...

Nice.

Do we all have the right to pick and choose whatever we personally feel is right?

Yes, I think so, as long as what we choose does not harm others.

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Here is something from McDowell more than a comment by a reader. BTW: Are you in favor of people breaking the law, i.e., entering this country illegally? Is that what it means to be tolerant? What laws should we tolerate being broken and which should be enforced? Do each of us as individuals get to decide?

http://www.family.org/fofmag/pp/a0010615.html

I asked:
Do we all have the right to pick and choose whatever we personally feel is right?

You responded:
Yes, I think so, as long as what we choose does not harm others.

Do you realize that with that comment you have opened the door to pathological and desturtive behavior? You are saying that anyone has the right to do whatever act they feel is right (with no harm done) in spite of what that action is. What you think harms another person may not be what someone else believes. Some pedophile may feel that they are doing that child a favor by helping that child "explore" their sexuality at an early age. There are people who believe that.
I won't get started with abortion but the same principle applies. This is a clear example of New Tolerance.

[TeaOom]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

Angelfire: I believe Christianity is true and intellectually tenable and I (maybe some others too) am prepared to defend my belief if you're interested.

...This was addressed to Dyoll, but I would like to address this as well as Dyoll may also wish to address this comment later...

The concept behind religious tolerance is that one isn't pressured to defend their belief in Christianity or their chosen faith...particularly in this thread...this thread is about tolerance not defending positions...or is it? Should I be lurking and looking for opportunities to project my faith on to others in this particular thread? I don't think so.

Dyoll: Each person has the right to choose a religious viewpoint that gives meaning to his/her life. And since rights imply duties, others have a duty to respect that right. As long as religious practices do not violate human rights.

Hear, hear Dyoll!

Since this thread was started from the point of view of a Christian, are these statements of Dyoll's, quoted in bold above, acceptable to those of the Christian faith?

[Guest]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

JM1 clarified his point in starting this thread with the following comment to me.

Hi Angelfire.

I actually was trying to look at diversity and tolerance as regards religious traditions, not morality, the latter of which we essentially agree upon.

But back to religious traditions. Many thinking Christians have struggled with the standing and fate of those who are outside the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, especially those who may know no other world view as a result of cultural, geographic or familial influences.
What are yout thoughts on this.

Would you care to directly address JM1's question or not, Tea'Oom?

[JM1]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

"Since this thread was started from the point of view of a Christian, are these statements of Dyoll's, quoted in bold above, acceptable to those of the Christian faith?"

Hi TeaOom.

I am not asking for people to say things that they think are acceptable to me or any other Chrisitian. I am just asking people to think.

So far, so good.

[TeaOom]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

JM1:The time is ripe for us to look at what the words "diversity" and "tolerance" mean in the context of the nature of religious truth and how can we understand these terms when we attempt to have constructive dialogue among persons of different faiths or no faith at all.

JM1:Hi Angelfire.
I actually was trying to look at diversity and tolerance as regards religious traditions, not morality, the latter of which we essentially agree upon.

But back to religious traditions. Many thinking Christians have struggled with the standing and fate of those who are outside the Western Judeo-Christian tradition, especially those who may know no other world view as a result of cultural, geographic or familial influences.
What are yout thoughts on this.

Angelfire: Would you care to directly address JM1's question or not, Tea'Oom?

The qoute you pulled out of JM1's was directed to you Angelfire, not me so no, I do not care to address the question he proposed to you.

You see, I fall under the category in JM1's opening statement as a person of a different faith [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

...plus I have already answered the question as to how I believe that persons of different faiths may have constructive dialog in an earlier post...

Tea'Oom: By the simple acknowledment, recognition and respect to the individuals having faiths other than oneself. There is no intellectual laziness in that...this is love in it's purest form.

You see, it's very difficult for me to fathom the verbage necessary to be generated by this subject...when I feel that the answer is so simple. Yet the world is having a great deal of difficulty with the subject of religious tolerance so I know that the the solution is not a simple one and discussions like this are needed.

[accepted77]

Re: Spiritual Tolerance and Diversity - One Christian's View

The issue of tolerance and diversity can only be seen from a christian perspective as what is "kingdom" and what is "this world".

The Isrealites were admonished by God to show "tolerance" to the strangers as they once were strangers in Egypt.

The abiding mark of a christian is love for ones enemies, Jesus used the good samaritan as an example of a neighbour percieved as an enemy being shown that love.

Where cultural mores becomes tagged christian is the point where the kingdom/world view become at odds with each other. The problem here is which system do we apply to this current time. Christian western culture has been intolerant in its zeal to convert the heathen, pagan. This zeal has taken on a bigotry that mandates non-christians to ascribe to the dictates of a belief system to become acceptable in these societies.

Since where in the bible do we as christian have the right to legislate on heathens, pagans our moral codes. I take issue with the abortion moral majority crowd not because I believe their cause is wrong but because they want to impose a christian lifestyle on a non-christian society.

Paul made a distinction, when he advised the church to "have no fellowiship with fornicators" he distinctly separated out the "fornicators of this world" he expected sinners to sin.

Where we point fingers at the intolerance of Muslims, etc we as christians must never move away from where our real zeal should be. To change the hearts of men not through laws or political parties but through -"humble themselves and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways"- an example of love. Unfortunately this has been as lost as the original manuscrips. A lot of our love is for show, or like the world love for 'cause'.

IMHO we as christians sometimes believe we should become as militant as the Homosexual communities or the Muslims to combat the encroachment of sin. What about the real power - prayer.

I do believe this started in the historical grab for the realms of power orchestrated by the Roman church and the compromises that the church has had to make to become "accepted" by the world Goverments of the Western society.

Had we continued as "pure and undefiled with the world" goverment system, a church of suffering but not wedded to compromise would have become the real power that the "gates of hell could not stand against". The christian church has become wedded to a social order a political system and we are are zealous to protect that system, intolerance R US as well as them.

This said there is a measure of truth we must share with the world, truths that most times will be an offense, we are instructed to make these truths not a stumbling block, make the world so jealous of our love for righteousnes that they want it. Let the spirit do the drawing through us, but we have our 'orders' and we do make the christian life a burden that many don't want.

When last have you seen real joy in a christian in the world (not on television or Sunday morning service)that draws people to want what we have. Judgement surely must begin in the church for we need a revolution of love and joy.

Please everyone dont take this as any pointed fingers, remember the topic - tolerance! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]