Exclusion

[metis]

"Whomever excludes others will find himself excluded in turn. Those who affirm that their God is the only God are doing something dangerous and pernicious, because they are on their way to imposing their beliefs on others, by any means possible"-- HHDL.

Agree or disagree?

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy if I ever heard one.

[metis]

That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy if I ever heard one.

And your reasoning is...?

Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

HHDL?

Dali Lama?

The Dalai Lama, yes.

Shalom,
Vern

[Acumen]

HHDL: Those who affirm that their God is the only God are doing something dangerous and pernicious, because they are on their way to imposing their beliefs on others, by any means possible

I have colored the slippery slope part.  And let the color of red represent the clarity demonstrated by the sunlight of my logic.   

[gluadys]

Affirming that my God is the only God is not necessarily excluding those who don't.

I am uncomfortable with that wording.  It sounds arrogant to me to claim my God is the only God.  I would rather think in terms of the only God being my God---but I have a lot yet to learn about him/her/it. 

It could well be that the only God is also the Buddhist (non-theist) "god", the shamanic God, the Hindu Brahman, etc. etc..   And that I, as a Christian, can learn about my God from non-Christians as well as from other Christians. 

"My God" is limited to what I can know of God.  The only God is not. 

[gluadys]

On the contrary, my God is everyone elses God too.  It should be obvious that it is the understanding of God that is being considered here.

I do not claim to have a complete understanding of God, but while I could indeed learn something about God from a non-Christian or their religion, the reality is that I don't need to, since all truth and understanding is available to me through the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ.

What if the Holy Spirit is trying to speak to you through a non-christian? 

[metis]

Christianity was the first major world religion that was 100% inclusive without regard gender, race, class, etc..

Sorry Elluminati, but that's simply not true.  Women are not allowed to be deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, Pope, and monks, whereas men are not allowed to be nuns.  Also, the RCC was not in the forefront by any means of the civil rights movements in many countries, including the U.S. (Mennonite and the Society of Friends were).  The Church also had a long reputation of aligning itself with the powers that be.

However, I don't want to paint an overly bleak picture either since that would be misleading.  Even during the many centuries that the feudal system and its descendant political/economic systems flourished, there was a concern for the poor.  Matter of fact, it's one of the reasons why the Catholic and Orthodox churches were so reluctant to embrace capitalism because of the concern for those who couldn't compete and were left without any means of support.  Even democracy was not accepted at first for the very same reason.

An excellent read here is Paul Johnson's "The History of Christianity".  He's and Anglo-Catholic and an excellent author.  Also excellent is Thomas Bokenkotter's "A Concise History of the Catholic Church".

Shalom,
Vern

[gluadys]

God could absolutely use a nonchristian to teach a Christian something about Himself but it won't be because of their religion but in spite of it.

I don't know that one could be sure of that.  Are there not positive values in all the great faiths?  Sometimes values that Christians have ignored? 

Catholics believe that all major religions have some truth, but without Christ they are incomplete.

I don't have a problem with that, but consider for example, how insensitive Christian societies have been to the welfare of the natural world.  It is aboriginal faiths, and Buddhism that have been at the forefront of a spirituality that is earth-inclusive.

This does not mean that care for creation was absent from Christian theology, but outside of Celtic Christianity it was certainly neglected.  Yet is was not "in spite of" but "because of" their more nature-centered spirituality that these other faiths could draw our attention to the needs of the planet. 

Christianity is a religion founded on the absolute fact that lā ilāha illā-llāh

"There is no God but God." (The Shahada of Islam)

But unlike Islam we believe that the only way to this God is through Jesus Christ and not Muhammad.

Well, Islam does not believe that the way to God is through Muhammad either.  A Muslim would take that notion as a grave insult to the faith.  Of course, they don't believe in Jesus as a way to God either.  In their perspective he is a great prophet, but no more. 

[metis]

What I was making clear is the fact that Christianity was the first all inclusive society.  Just because a woman cannot be a Deac, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal ( and rightfully so) doesn't mean that they can't be Christians.  "All inclusive" does not mean that everyone can be anything they want within the Church.  Christianity/RCC has never denied people the God given right of being a part of the Christian society because of gender, race, class, etc....

Actually all the major religions allow anyone to be active members one way or another, and each tends to have different roles for men and women.  Nor can we really give credit to Christianity for equality since there was a hierarchy of power that goes back even to the apostles and their relationship with the followers.  It would take the Renaissance to start the process of looking at people in a more equal perspective, and the growth of Protestantism ("priesthood of all believers") also furthered that along.

However, I don't think there's much doubt that Christianity tended to be more inclusive, especially in regards to gender, than traditional Judaism of Jesus' day. 

Shalom,
Vern 

[gluadys]

It doesn't matter if so called "Christians" ignore Christian values, it doesn't take away from the fact that they are still Christian values and can be learned from Christianity.

I agree with the second part of your statement.  But on  a practical and moral basis it certainly DOES matter if "Christians" ignore Christian values.

And it also doesn't matter if some so called "Christian societies" haven't been as     eco-friendly as you think they should have been, all the truth about how we should be good stewards of the earth is found in Christianity...try reading St. Frances of Assisi.

Again, agreed.  In fact, that was my point.  It is not that a creation-focused spirituality is missing from Christianity, but that it was being ignored, with dire consequences to our relationship to creation.  So, even though it is there, in St. Francis and elsewhere, maybe we needed to hear it again from outside a Christian framework, and not "in spite of" but "because of" the fact it was more central in those faiths.   Once we started paying attention, it was not difficult to re-discover our own spiritual resources within our own tradition saying the same thing. 

Sorry, but I get cranky sometimes, but I try to stay focused and my crankiness will pass.

Ah, we all know the feeling.  No problem. 

[metis]

gluadys:

When Christianity abandoned the Mosaiic Law, they also slipped away from the Laws that prohibited the wanton destruction of trees and animals, which the Law protected to a large extent both explicitly and implicitly (tikkun olam).  Much of halacha that dealt with these was to be further elaborated on in the Mishnah and Talmud, which are largely based on the oral law. 

Shalom,
Vern 
 

[gluadys]

I am not sure who both you two are blaiming on behalf of "Christianity."

Is all Christendom and or Christianity to blame?  Every individual Christian?  The doctrines laid down in Canon law by the RCC?

Who or what exactly are we pointing the finger at here?

It's not a blame game.  The OP was an invitation to comment on a quote from the Dalai Lama on the tendency to exclude the spiritual experience and wisdom of those of other faiths.  I raised the environmental issue because it is a matter of record that "Christian" societies have not, in general, been very protective of nature.  In some instances, there has even been a sense of proprietary "dominion" as if we had a right to do whatever we want with non-human plants and animals--especially if there is a profit to be made. 

It is not that this has ever been the official teaching of the Church, much to the contrary. 

So, it was cited not to lay blame, but to illustrate that non-Christian wisdom might be a guide to Christians, not as you originally suggested "in spite of" their religion, but because of it. 

[metis]

I am not sure who both you two are blaiming on behalf of "Christianity."

There are really two things at work here.  What I was saying, which is clearly evident by the theologies involved and what happened historically, was that the Torah and Talmudic guidelines in regards to the treatment of animals and how trees needed to be dealt with, along with the general drift of Torah and it's tikkun olam approach, would not likely have happened if Christianity had retained the Law.  What this did was to open the door to a change whereas the concern about both, which did happen, could have occurred.

Two quick examples:  The Law states that animals must not be unequally yoked (creates strain on the smaller animal) and they must have the Sabbath off as well.  The Talmud, based on the oral law, takes it even further.  Obviously, the intention in these passages is that the welfare and conditions of animals is important.

A second example is that Torah prohibits the destruction of fruiting trees and, according to the Talmud, if a fruiting tree simply must be cut down, then two fruiting trees must be planted and any animals or humans that were reliant on the tree for food, must be fed.  Again, it's quite clear what else this is saying-- people and animals are important and these trees are necessary to protect.  Obviously there's more to the story, but I'm sure you get the general drift. 

Shalom,
Vern
 

[metis]

I'm still not sure how this exposes some kind of flaw in Christianity.

Hindus and Buddhists are the major religious influence in India and India is a huge polluter, does that somehow reflect on those religions?

I didn't say "flaw" or even imply it.  "Opening the door", which clearly happened, did not cause the changes mentioned. 

As far as "India" is concerned, yes it does reflect Hindu teachings to a certain degree, but it's a country that acts like a country.  We see much the same in Israel or here in the U.S.  In India, Buddhism is a minor religion relative to Hinduism.

In one of the books by HHDL, he mentions about the issue of pollution and environmentalism in that they were slow in responding to these issues largely because of their unawareness as to the potential damage that could be created.  However, that has very much changed in recent years.  And I certainly would hope that all faiths be willing to admit their shortcomings in this area as well and set a course of action to bring about change.  As with someone who is an alcoholic, the first big step is to admit that there's a problem, which most alcoholics never get around to doing. 

Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

There is nothing in Christianity that needs to apologize for it's stance on "Nature."
The accusation that somehow Christianity has failed in the matters of nature is unsubstantiated.  I do believe we, as a human race, can be better stewards of the earth, but we don't need to be lied to or falsely guilted into it.

"Lied to"?  "Falsely guilted"? 

I don't think so.

Shalom,
Vern

[gluadys]

Could you give me an example of a "Christian society?"

I define a Christian society as one in which the dominant culture is Christian and/or Christian-derived and the Christian church is the dominant religious institution.  So, basically Europe and European-derived cultures e.g. the US. 

I'm still not sure how this exposes some kind of flaw in Christianity.

It is not about exposing any flaw in Christianity.  It is not a blame game.  It could be about the failure of some (most?) Christians to be practice some aspects of their faith.  But I don't really want to go there either.

It is really about the possibilities of different faiths having a positive influence on each other.

Hindus and Buddhists are the major religious influence in India and India is a huge polluter, does that somehow reflect on those religions?

No, it just means that Hindus and Buddhists can be as sloppy and negligent in their practice as many Christians are. 

It seems you are having difficulty distinguishing between the ideals a faith teaches and the actual practice of those who profess the faith.  It is not a fault of a religion and its teaching if those who profess it, for various reasons, fail to practice it completely or perfectly. 

There is nothing in Christianity that needs to apologize for it's stance on "Nature."

I agree entirely.  I don't know where you got the idea that anyone was suggesting a fault in Christianity.  No one has suggested that, so the defensiveness is really unnecessary.

Note that what you said can also be said about Hinduism.  There is nothing in it that needs to apologize for it's stance on "Nature". 

We all need to learn our faith better and put it into practice more faithfully.  And we can all learn from each other.  That is all I am really saying.