Check out this post from Neil Simpson’s blog.
Neil writes:
Self-refuting: [Religious pluralists] claim that other paths to God are valid, but they specifically exclude Christians who think Jesus is the only way. But if all these paths are valid, why isn’t orthodox Christianity? And if orthodox Christianity is valid, then these other paths are not. Also, the definitions of “God” in these religions are mutually exclusive.
Pluralists simply don’t understand or apply the logical law of non-contradiction: You can’t have a personal God (Christianity) and an impersonal God (Islam) at the same time, or be saved by faith in Christ alone (Christianity) and by good deeds (everybody else), die once and face judgment (Christianity and Islam) and be reincarnated (Hinduism), Jesus dies on a cross (Christianity) and Jesus does not die on a cross (Islam), etc.
In the same post, he also explains why religious pluralism actually an arrogant and hypocritical point of view, not a tolerant one!
Now, check out this post from Pugnacious Irishman.
Rich explains how to do defeat moral relativism without even saying a word. You better learn how to do it, because the majority of the people you meet today believe in moral relativism. Rich knows – he’s a school teacher and this is the ethical theory that all the young people subscribe to.
My thoughts
This sort of weak tolerance of all viewpoints and moralities doesn’t cut any ice with open-minded atheists and skeptics. They like to discuss arguments and evidence. The best atheists and agnostics are guided by reason and evidence, so they are not offended by your exclusive views. On the contrary: the fact that you hold to unpopular, divisive views appears to them as courageous and authentic. Remember, Anthony Flew was an atheist once. Sure, most atheists are guided by untested assumptions and selfishness, but some of them can be reasoned with.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Thanks for the link! I think it is important to highlight the errors of theological liberals. In many ways they are worse than even the fake TV preachers. The theological liberals came up through the inside, lying at their ordination vows or not being honest and resigning if they changed their views later.
LikeLike
Wonderful post,
I’ve added it to Jeremiah Films • Community Submitted Articles • Worldview • Christianity
LikeLike
I think indeed that the limited way in which the notion of plurality is described here, then yes its self-refuting. I think what at least some pluralists are saying is that at their core, most religions have the same the same or similar values. Certainly if you look at the entire, orthodox view of a a relgiion and buy into the whole thing, you will logically disagree with others that do the same.
I think the best that pluralistic religious people can do is agree on the basic stuff (God(s) exist, there’s meaning to life, moral values, love, etc.) and agree to disagree on other, less important (IMHO) issues like reincarnation or how god’s name is spelled. Christians themselves don’t agree on the basics.
LikeLike
Christians agree on the basics in the creeds, like the Nicean Creed or the Apostle’s Creed. Those are super short yet they define the essentials agreed on by Catholics, Orthodox, Reformed Protestants and Arminian/Wesleyan Protestants.
LikeLike
The creeds don’t encompass all that much, though. They don’t even include the gospel message whatsoever, unless you count the phrase “forgiveness of sins” from the Apostles’ Creed. You could definitely believe the creeds and still wind up in hell. I don’t even think I’d really consider them “essentials.” So Craig kinda has a point.
But on the other hand, the reason pluralists can agree to disagree about differences is that they *do* look united toward *very* vague, basic ideas like “love” (loosely defined). They think that, however salvation can be described, it comes from becoming loving individuals (loosely defined). And so they despise Christianity, which is so hateful because it condemns wickedness and claims to be the exclusive path to eternal life, apart from love or good works.
And they consider this New Agey path to salvation Absolute Truth.
LikeLike
Craig, you actual present the pluralist problem in this post.
IF all that matters about God is that there is a god, and that there are certain morals that by and large people should follow, then what you say holds.
BUT IF those things aren’t all that ultimately matters AND God Himself has disclosed what does matter, and being nice and “spiritual” doesn’t cut it, then what you’ve articulated is the worst sort of foolishness imaginable.
What this sort of “all of them are the same” take says, is that all of them are wrong (because each in turn makes exclusive truth claims), and the only thing that is right is that you think all of them are the same (which itself is an exclusive truth claim!)
In short, it sounds nice, but it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense with any sort of examination.
LikeLike
Thats a lot of “if’s”. What you are basically saying is that “IF” the orthodox, protestent, evangelical (fundamentalist?) version of christianity is true, then yes everything else is foolishness. The same for fundamentalist islam could be said, if that narrow version of islam is true, then the rest of us are in serious trouble!
I actually believe much as you said, that all the religions are wrong in some form or fashion. But I also think they all have some truth to them, and thats where pluralism should reside.
Most religious people believe that their particular religion is right, and others are wrong at some level, but that doesn’t mean that they have to believe that everyone else who follows another religion is damned, thoroughly evil and rebellious towards God. For example, you can intellectually believe or disbelieve in something based on how you were raised, without it being a comment on your “rebelling” against god. Also, most people disbelieve some part of their religion.
LikeLike
I do believe that some teachings of other religions are useful, and some of the moral teachings are true. For example, I have found the four great truths of the Buddha to be useful. I don’t extinguish all desires, but reading about these gave me some insight as to WHY God might require Christians to engage in self-denial.
LikeLike
Also, i met a few muslims in college that belive that allah is a personal god.
LikeLike
My friends, I believe in pluralism and I am also a Christian… but you are missing the point here… Jesus said Himself; “The Kingdom of God is Within You” You should read Tolstoy famous book with the same title.
It doesn’t matter which religion you follow as long as God is within you. Your actions, your courage, your kindness, your compassion. Every religion have the same Golden Rule: “do to others what you would like to be done to you”
By this comment you may say I am a closet Bahai, but I wont come out of the closet because I feel different when I think of Jesus and I’m not searching for a religion.
I still have a huge respect for the Bahai community, I have met some. They are pluralists by the way, and they argue very well… (I was a pluralist before meeting them)
With all due respect I think Neil Simpson doesn’t know what he is talking about… “Alah and Jehova” are the same.
Do really think God will punish you if you are a great guy, an example to others but say you’re a budist? What about those people who never had the chance to know about christianity? Are they dammed no matter what they do??
LikeLike
“Do really think God will punish you if you are a great guy”
I think this is the deadly assumption. No one is really a great guy. In fact, everyone has acted rebelliously to the sovereign God of the universe. Each and every man who has ever lived has commited a capital crime and deserves death from a just and holy God. The suprising and amazing part is that He is a merciful and patient God. The most amazing part is that He Himself has provided a way to atonement, by which we can accept that another has made an atoning sacrifice to pay for our sins.
You might feel nice when you think of Jesus, but what Jesus are you talking about? Certainly not the same one that the Christian bible does. He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life, none shall come to the Father except through me.”
Again, this all sounds nice, but it really doesn’t hold up to any sort of scrutiny.
If you really love Jesus, I would suggest you spend a little time A) reading the bible and getting to know Him and B) reading more on why syncretistism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. As you pointed out elsewhere, getting the argument from both sides.
You’ll find that you’ve misquoted the golden rule, and that you’ve grossly misinterpretted what it means to have the kingdom of God within you. The Kingdom of God is a theme that runs right throughout the bible, and understanding it is absolutely key. At the very least, I’d recommend looking up the entry in any theological dictionary.
Again, I think your instinct is good, it’s nice and has concern for all men. God shares that, and He has revealed Himself clearly and for all men. Rather than inventing, twisting and warping what he has given us, I think you must accept it or reject it.
LikeLike
In terms of earning eternal life, unfortunately, being “a great guy” means about as much to God as being a filthy rag. There are all sorts of horrible people who have friends. Those friends will routinely say that these horrible people are great guys. When you’re a horrible person yourself, it’s easy to look at other horrible people and look leniently on their flaws, especially if they aren’t particularly mean to you. But God isn’t a horrible person like we are, so it’s not easy for him to look that way at us — especially because we *are* mean to God.
And the fact that you are preaching that Jesus is not the only way to heaven, Alex, tells me that you do not understand the gospel and are probably not going to heaven yourself.
You’ve stated that all religions have the same Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Have you fulfilled that rule? Because if you haven’t, then obviously you haven’t earned eternal life, even by your own standards. And remember Jesus’s illustration (“The Parable of the Good Samaritan”) about what neighborly love actually entails. Have you always loved all your neighbors the way the Good Samaritan did? I doubt it. But in any case, it’s the blood of Jesus that earns our way into heaven for us, and not our being a great guy. Just accept this truth, and you will live. But right now, the beliefs you are supporting are definitely *not* Christianity.
LikeLike
Allah is impersonal, Jehovah is not. Allah weighs sins in the balance and (probably) lets you in paradise if you are 51% good. Jehovah does not.
Allah’s holy book said Jesus did not die on the cross. The Bible says He did.
And on and on. If words mean anything, Allah and Jehovah are not the same.
Water looks like vodka, but has difference consequences. Same thing with religions. It is the differences that count.
By whose standards are you a “great guy?” Your own? The God of the Bible — Jehovah — could not be more clear that none of us are “great guys” by his standards.
LikeLike
OK… Unlike economy I like religion, and I read and talk much about theology and spirituality in general. I have an evangelic Christian friend, I’ve talked with Jehovah witness’s, Baha’i, etc. My ideas are becoming clear… I still search for the “Truth” but in general terms I know my way…
If I understood you clearly your idea is the same as my evangelic friend and similar to Jehovah witness. So I think that you say that for attaining “salvation” you need ONLY to believe in Jesus and by that abide by His will. That’s more important than to be a nice person because God’s standards are so high that no one can come close. So trying to be “nice” is futile, so the only option is to believe in Jesus.
Ok then… what about, let’s say, Gandhi? Gandhi was an Hindu by heart but as a Universalist or as you say a pluralist, he ALSO believed in Jesus, because like I’ve said the general message in Hinduism and Christianity is the same!!! Believing in Hinduism and in Christ is not mutually exclusive, ask Gandhi!! Only the religious details are different. I’ve NOT misquoted the Golden Rule. Do a search! It really appears as probably the most or one the most important things in ALL major religions. Your interpretation is different then mine, that doesn’t make me “grossly” wrong.
Detail interpretations ruin religions. Causes wars it’s the main reason why science and religion get into skirmishes. That happened in the dark ages of Christianity and it is happening now in Islam!
You can’t interpret religions in detail, you have to feel it in your heart, where the truth is. God gave us that understanding if we are really committed to know the truth and to develop Love in our hearts. No religion has the absolute truth by itself, the Truth is scattered. However you don’t need to seek it completely, somethings are really impossible for us to understand at our present state of existence… you only have to have “God’s Kingdom Within You!” That’s why a peasant who can’t read, a poor unwanted soul has more chance of being “saved” than a rich person, as it is written in the Bible.
I haven’t choose Tolstoy book by chance, I really think that his little book is the best interpretation of what it means to have “The Kingdom of God Within”
Universalists or pluralists are the MOST tolerant people I’ve ever met (religiously speaking) with exceptions of course… I have no doubts about this. I have met several people on both sides, first hand. Gandhi is a fine example which I use often (unfortunately I’ve never met him).
“Each and every man who has ever lived has commited a capital crime and deserves death from a just and holy God.” I am in complete disagreement with this: What capital crime was committed by, say, a 7 year old child that died with cancer??
““I am the way, the truth and the life, none shall come to the Father except through me.”” What He meant by this is that we have to follow His example, we have to commit our lives and our hearts to try to be like Him, to forgive like Him, to Love like Him, to be honest like Him, to talk like Him, to follow His example, to have his courage!! One REALLY can try to be like Him even if one never heard of Jesus! Here comes the idea of God Within!
Neil, like I’ve tried to say before, Islam and Judaism (the basis of Christianity) WERE the same religion until Abraham! So in essence they had the same God. What you’ve said has nothing to do with a personal or impersonal God. That question is a deep philosophical one… to the best of my knowledge God is personal in both religions. A personal God is a being to whom it’s possible to have a personal relationship as to a person http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god
The Bible clearly can’t be interpreted literally like the Jehova’s do. You have to feel the truth, not interpret it. Read behind the lines, think with your heart, see God everywhere not only at the holy scriptures, God is in many places.
The Samaritan parable is an excellent example showing that to be “saved” you at the very least have to try to be like the Samaritan to be saved. You will not be saved by merely stating to believe in Jesus. I believe that God is so merciful that is mercy is the same as stated in NDE experiences…
So my friends, I have read both sides and this is what I think. Although we think differently I also think you have good intentions like my dear evangelic friend. However you and even me have much space still for improvement. We may think we are good persons but we really have to try to be even better, we have many flaws. Tolerance, compassion, love, courage… we lack this things yet in quantity. So I hope we can be a little better persons each day!
There are definitely good people by “His Standards” in other religions. It’s your relationship with “God” that counts, not the religion you profess. It’s this will, in spite our everyday flaws, that will save us! The will to be like Jesus, in life and heart. In essence I’m saying the same as you, but I’m saying that others do the same, though express it by different words. This is my pluralism.
“And the fact that you are preaching that Jesus is not the only way to heaven, Alex, tells me that you do not understand the gospel and are probably not going to heaven yourself.” This kind of “Godlike”, intolerant thinking got me away of Jehova’s witness. No one knows really who God will save in the end… sorry for the long comment, but I had to be clear…
LikeLike
I was actually expecting advocates of religious pluralism to bring up Gandhi, and you haven’t disappointed me! :) You say Gandhi ALSO believed in Jesus. The question is who did Gandhi believe Jesus to be? God? There in lies the problem. He also thought, Krishna, was god. Let’s discuss Hinduism a little shall we? Hinduism basically has 3 major gods : Shiva, the destroyer, Vishnu, the protector and Brahma, the creator. Of these, Shiva and Vishnu are more important. Now the description of Shiva and Vishnu by a Hindu friend of mine was thus: Shiva is a straight forward guy. ‘An eye for an eye’ type. But Vishnu is a cunning one and very deceitful! Mind you, I am quoting a Hindu. Now Bhagavad Gita basically talks about Mahabharatha which was a war between Pandavas and Gauravas. And this story has one of the incarnations of Vishnu, namely Krishna. Krishna helps the Pandavas to win the war by deceitful ways. I again quote my friend, “There’s a part in Bhagavad Gita where Krishna tells Arjuna (the most skillful Pandava brother) that you can’t always win a war by just methods. You can’t always win injustice with justice. So we’ll have to resort to injustice to fight injustice sometimes.” Which exactly what they did, by tricking and killing Karna who was Duriyodana’s friend (The leader of Gauravas) and far more skillful than Arjun. Had Karna been alive Pandavas could have never won the war. That despite the god incarnate Krishna being with them.
Gandhi says he was comforted by reading Bhagavad Gita, which is the holy book of Hindus (Or rather one which they prefer call their Bible. Ideally the Vedas should be their Bible.). Now since Gandhi exclusively quoted the Bhagavad Gita as his source of strong Hindu faith and also stated all religions were professing compassion and love, he was making a blatantly contradicting statement, for reasons explained above. Bhagavad Gita is full of winning by deceitful methods and resorting to injustice even by their god! Where is peace in any of this? Why should god resort to unjust methods to win? No! I am sorry. The God the Christian Bible speaks of and His ways are totally different from the god the Hindu Bible speaks of. I really fail to see where Gandhi found the similarities.
Another problem with Gandhi is that, he said “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.”. Now, isn’t that a mighty mean statement to be made by such a great guy! It’s not as if Gandhi never met a single good Christian in his life. His statement was more politically motivated because he regarded Britishers as Christians. It was a nasty statement in the light of him having good Christian friends. I am denying Gandhi was a great guy in a lot of ways but he certainly did err with respect to his beliefs. As to his judgment, that’s for God to decide but Gandhi willfully rejected Christ as his only Saviour and to willfully reject Christ is to insult His sacrifice despite the knowledge of His supreme sacrifice. I know a lot about Gandhi, ’cause he is the father of MY nation. I have respect for him but with respect to the views of the Christian god, I believe he definitely is in trouble.
And as for your statement that just believing Christ will bring us Christians salvations, you can’t be more wrong. I suggest you read Matthew 7: 21-23. Jesus is very specific about following up our faith with actions to prove we really do have faith in Him. You’ll find that in Letter to James as well. Jesus gave us 2 commandments and we are to follow both. That includes your version of being ‘nice’.
As for people who never knew Christ, but were still nice, the judgment is Christ’s. It’s the people who were nice but rejected Him willfully who we know for sure are in trouble. As for the former, we can’t know God’s thoughts as it is mentioned in Isaiah.
LikeLike
Actually Shalini, Matthew 7:22 talks about a group of people who perform “wonderful works” for Jesus, yet still get rejected by Jesus. I suspect that he rejects them because they’re relying on their works and not on Jesus’s gift. All you have to do to inherit eternal life is believe in Christ for it.
LikeLike
But what does Matthew 7:21 say? Jesus explicitly mentions He wants people to follow what His Father wants us to do. And as for the ‘wonderful works’ mentioned, they did a lot of things in Jesus name but did they follow the commandments He gave? As in, loving thy neighbour, forgiving thy neighbour, clothing, feeding them, meeting them in prison? I fail to see why the Father and the Son would give us commandments if we are not required to follow them. Jesus obeyed His Father’s commandments and so should we. He taught us how to do it by doing it Himself. I am sorry Drew, I disagree with you on this! Let’s not keep telling ourselves ‘the flesh is weak’ so we can’t follow the commandments. Jesus taught us a way to overcome the ‘weak flesh’ problem. He asked to pray for strength. If we trust in our human strength to overcome temptations, we are sure to fail. But if we rely on God’s strength, we won’t. Being Christian, requires for us to believe in Christ as our only salvation, sure. But also requires in obeying the commandments given to us!! Some people don’t give a lot of importance to the Book of Revelation, ’cause it is apocalyptic. But I believe the Bible as a whole, so tell me what Jesus means in Revelation 22: 12-13.
LikeLike
I sure agree with you here Shalani!
LikeLike
When the heretics agree with you, Shalini, that’s a problem. And the “will of God” is to believe in Jesus. (See John 6)
LikeLike
LOL! I see you are hard core evangelic! Before Christ existed there was no possible “salvation” then!! I Don’t know why God has ever created those people, they were condemned already…
LikeLike
We have answers to questions like this. It’s not like you are the first one to ever think of these things.
LikeLike
I figured you would :) … I haven’t yet dweel deep enought in this huge blog. I probably have different thoughts though.
LikeLike
I see you have completely no understanding of the Scriptures. Christ is the salvation from the first man who ever lived to the last man who would ever live.
LikeLike
So the ‘heretic’ agreeing with me makes my statement flawed? :) Drew, I think we both are talking about 2 different things. If you think I am saying that apart from believing in Christ we should also be great people to attain salvation, then you have completely misunderstood me. I am saying as believers of Christ, we have to follow His teachings. Christ spoke about forgiveness, love, charity and lot many things. He didn’t just speak about them, but did them to show us how to do them. Remember the rich man who followed all the commandments. His question was clearly about eternal life and Christ asked him to follow the COMMANDMENTS before asking him to sell his riches and giving them to the poor and following Him. That man would have easily followed Christ had He not mentioned the ‘selling his riches’ part. That incident alone explains doing things Christ asked us to do is a natural consequence of believing in Christ.
You still haven’t answered the purpose of the commandments if it’s not required for us to follow them, as Christians. Especially in the light of Jesus quickly adding the second most commandment when asked about the greatest commandment. The first is consistent with our views in Jesus as the only way to salvation and the second is the natural consequence of believing him. Honestly, we say the Lord’s prayer almost everyday. Can we lie to the Lord about “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us”? It’s a tricky situation, don’t you think? None of us are perfect. Only God is. But we still can try and follow the commandments because when we fail, we know who we can go to for forgiveness. But we can’t neglect the commandments altogether!
And if I may… I know it’s not my place to tell you what to do or say, on the light of me being very imperfect in matters relating to my temper, but still. But remember Jesus asking the apostles to shake the dust off their feet if someone doesn’t welcome their message? I believe if after repeated explanations if someone rejects our views just ignore them. Repeatedly calling a person a heretic is only going to aggravate a person and make them regard Christianity with contempt!!Just saying.
LikeLike
With all due respect, if you say the general message of both Hinduism and Christianity is the same then you don’t truly understand either very well.
Gandhi may have believed in Jesus but I am not aware of anything he said or did indicating that he was an authentic follower of Jesus.
The New Testament claims 100 times directly and indirectly that Jesus is the only way to salvation. That isn’t what makes it true (the resurrection is the evidence for that), but it does mean that part of the “general message” of Christianity is that you are lost without Jesus.
Also flip through the Old Testament and note the countless warnings not to worship other gods and the extreme consequences when the Jews did so.
Here are just a few verses:
John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Acts 4:11-12 He is “‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the capstone.’ Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
Acts 16:30-31 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
1 John 5:11-12 And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.
Luke 10:16 He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.
Luke 12:8-9 I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.
John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.
John 10:7-8 Therefore Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.”
LikeLike
That’s not what the Bible says — unless yo just “feel it,” I suppose ;-)
What if I feel that Jesus was being sarcastic when He said to love our enemies?
LikeLike
I think I was clear in my statment about what I think. It would be foolish to continue this arguement with people who are so sure about so many things…
I’ve told you what I think it means to believe in Jesus and I’ll no doubt remain in that belief, because it is the one that makes sense with an all Loving God. Drew answer to Shalani represents what evangelics think.
Another thing is that I think you grossely miss interpreted the Bhagavad Gita, to your side (of course). I can also find examples in the Bible of a God which condones genocide. I recommend some of you check the source before “quoting” some scriptures… I’ve seen other mistakes in this blog…
I still think that all the profets of the main religions are advocates of unconditional love, compassion and devotion to a God which is in fact the same and ONLY God. Basic ethics in religions is the same because God is the same. We humanity distorted this message and in the name of this separatism, created wars and hatred.
God gave us the capacity to understand true love if we are commited to it.
To end this, I think Gandhi was one of the greatest men that ever lived. He had the courage to criticize even it’s own religion… something you cannot do. He understood something very important “The God Within”. If God doesn’t “save” him and instead “saves” some other babbler who keeps repeating he blindly believes in Jesus but keeps on being a selfish bastard (because it’s futile to even try to be a better person; God’s standards are so high)… like some people I know… if this is your God He´s not mine, and sure isn’t the God that exists.
LikeLike
I see that you ‘think’ I have grossly misinterpreted Bhagavad Gita in a way that suits me. Lets be clear a little. The only thing I mentioned from the Bhagavad Gita was of Krishna using deceitful methods to kill Karna, without whom’s death they couldn’t win the war. If you can do me a favour, just ask any of your Hindu friends (if you have any) or better still, read about Mahabharata yourself and tell me how exactly I have ‘grossly misinterpreted’ the Gita. In fact, I think I was clear in saying Krishna used deceit to win a war. Did I make any atrocious claims? I don’t think so. Just check it for yourself before accusing someone of gross misterpretations based on your ‘thoughts’.
Okay now you harp on the ‘genocides’ in the Bible. Since we spoke of a war in Mahabharata, we’ll just stick to wars in the OT as well. Did the God of Christians resort to deceit in any of the wars you’ve read in the Bible? He either said He’ll make sure they win or He refused to help them when they had rebelled against Him. It’s not about the casualities of a war I spoke of. It’s about being righteous and just in wars. You won’t see treachery by God in wars in the Bible, I assure you that. Why don’t you read the Christian scriptures properly, or better still, the comments made here properly before going on and on about how we all lie.
And as for your thoughts on Gandhi being the ‘greatest’ man ever lived, you are free to think as you deem fit. I have no problems with that. Gandhi criticized his own religion because he was confused about which faith to follow exclusively and a took a bit of everything and criticized a bit of everything. But I haven’t failed to notice that how conveniently you ignored that the greatest man that ever lived in your opinion disliked a very large section of the society. I personally think that’s not what great men do. And the worse part is, Gandhi said, “I am also a Christian.” So did Gandhi dislike himself? I didn’t know great men dislike themselves! Definitely confused, I’ll say. Yes, I am being snide, ’cause I find it preposterous that a person who resorts to using expletives even has the audacity to talk about the “God within” and “being nice”, especially since you can’t even control the words you use when you type out a comment.( Seriously how difficult it would be to filter your thoughts when you are only typing down something and not talking to the person on face!)
You can stick to your beliefs. Nobody out here is breathing down your neck and forcing you to change your beliefs. We are just asserting our beliefs. I don’t see why you should have a problem with that?! And I agree with you on one thing. This is turning out to be futile. Don’t bother to reply. ‘Cause I am not going to bother to reply if you do, anyway!
LikeLike
Hold your horses! Sorry if I offend you… I get carried away when I speak about my beliefs. I didn’t say any of you consciently lied… but just as an example. I’ve seen here in this blog written elsewhere that the Koran condones sex with children. A specific passage was given, I checked it, and that’s not what it says there, not even remotely.
I will check the Bhagavad Gita! Just to not make the same mistake! I know that Jesus was probably the greatest prophet of them all, starting by the fact He never participated in any war.
In my opinion the OT is almoust another religion in compare to the NT. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 in the Bible is genocide plain and simple of inocent people… I can’t find no other excuses.
Hinduism is one of the oldest religions in history, and there are many sects out of it. Few believe in Krishna. I criticize the belief in the infallibility of the scriptures (of each and every word), even the Bible OT, because it was written and re-written by human hands. The are no original documents.
About Gandhi I have no further comments, your opinion is in complete oposition with mine. I think for example he loved everyone with no exeptions. He was not perfect and had flaws like everyone, but he was more humble than you or me. And the things you’ve talked about have to be put into context. He really was not confused at all, he seemed a person with a very clear code of life.
There’s other very interesting post here about Anthony Flew. Now there’s an humble man! There aren’t many like him.
I only criticize your lack of self criticism. Anything that cannot be proven wrong is not scientific and not worth discussing. There’s nothing I can say to prove my point. Let’s stick to each other beliefs. Don’t think of me as an intolerant person, because I respect your belief and I really want everyone to get along and be friends.
LikeLike
http://www.islam-watch.org/Amarkhan/pedophilia-in-islam/pedophilia-islam.htm#Ch7
Could you help me understand how you came to the conculsion that the Koran does not support pedophilia?
LikeLike
As allways you only go to the sources which support you… the truth is not that simple… In this article https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/12-year-old-child-bride-of-25-year-old-man-dies-after-three-days-of-labor/
it’s written that at the Quran 65:4 there is a passage which condones pedophilia. However that’s not what it says there, in spite there are many websites saying otherwise.
Check a neutral site, with only the translation of the Quran, like: http://www.jannah.org/qurantrans/quran65.html
This passage only talks about menopause and pregnant women.
I’m not saying that the Quran doesn’t condones pedophilia, all I said was for you to be more careful before being so sure about your sources. I litle humility is allways a good thing…
The fact that Muhammed married a 9 year old girl is much more shocking than this passage! Be more careful about being so sure of things… your arrogance can blind you the truth… I tend to be like this too… though I’m working on a more Socratic aproach.
LikeLike
My last word on this. Since you think I don’t understand my Bible, I’ll stop with this. You are refusing to look into book of James. Fine! How about Matthew 28 19-20? After baptizing which essentially means “believing in Christ”, He asks them to teach to obey everything He commanded them to do. What about that?
And the commandments were essentially the Word of God. We all know who the Word of God is! So following the Word of God is following Jesus.
You are free to disagree with me. But please, I know my Bible too. To believe Jesus and not to do what He did (following the commandments) is totally contradictory. But you see everything in a different light, I give you the last word. ‘Cause I don’t this conversation going anywhere!
LikeLike
Sorry, Drew asked me to delete his comment but you are replying to Drew saying that faith is all that’s needed and no works are needed.
LikeLike
Yeah, I posted that other comment in the wrong location and wanted to move it, but I guess it just got deleted. But a quick summary of what I said in the last comment — Basically, we do not have to obey Jesus to get into heaven. You mentioned the Rich Young Ruler, but the Rich Ruler was asking Jesus how to earn his way into heaven. Jesus immediately told him that no one was good but God, and then explained that to get into heaven, he would need to keep all the commandments. Afterward, he told the disciples that such salvation was “impossible.”
I’m not ignoring James at all. James explicitly mentions that he’s writing about the topic of demonstrating your faith to other HUMANS (2:18).
And none of James’s three examples deals with lifelong obedience to God/Jesus. What were his three examples?
1. Demons shuddered
2. Abraham attempted a human sacrifice…because he knew God would immediately resurrect Isaac (see Hebrews 11:17-19).
3. Rahab backstabbed her people to save her skin
His three examples show that faith *should* logically lead to action in most cases. If you claim to have faith but do not even shudder like a demon does, your faith is shamefully inactive. But faith clearly doesn’t always lead to a life of obedience, because if it did, James wouldn’t have to tell his “brothers” over and over to stop living like jerks.
And a lot of people instantly look at any time the Bible uses the word “saved” and automatically think it’s talking about how to get into heaven. But the proper question you should always ask is “Saved from WHAT?” In James, it’s talking about being saved from the discipline of God and from living an unproductive Christian life. As he mentions in verse 2:18, you can’t spread the gospel to others when you’re living in sin. So your faith is “dead,” or “useless.” James 1:21-25 actually defines pretty clearly what he means by “save”; he says that if you obey God, God will bless you in everything that you do. Sin, meanwhile, leads to premature death (1:15).
Finally, if this passage really bothers you, I would suggest that you read it in the KJV or some other literal version. The NIV badly mangles certain passages like this one by adding in a Calvinist slant. Also, here’s a pretty good article that, imo, debunks the legalistic interpretation of James:
Click to access wilkin.pdf
You state that “believing in Christ” means obeying his commands. Maybe if you believed absolutely 100% everything Christ said with every fiber of your being for every moment of your life…then *maybe* that would be the case (Or maybe not!). But no one could ever be saved if that type of “belief” were required. When Jesus met the promiscuous woman at the well, he didn’t spend hours explaining theology and practical morals to her. Rather, he just told her that if she ASKED him for living water, he would give it to her. Overall, I think 1 John 5:11 gives the clearest statement of what a person must believe in order to be saved:
“Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:10-12)
I see three elements in that passage:
1. You must believe that God has GIVEN you… (i.e., a gift)
2. …ETERNAL life… (meaning it cannot be lost)
3. …in JESUS (i.e., based on the righteousness of the historical person of Christ, and not on your own righteousness).
And John says that if you fail to accept these elements, what he calls “the testimony,” then you make God out to be a liar and you do not have the Son. You’ll be like one of those guys from Matthew 7 asking Jesus why he’s rejecting you after you did all those wonderful works for him. He’ll just say, “Sorry, but at no point did I ever know you.”
LikeLike
This turned out to be a very interesting chat :)
In spite of what Shalani thinks of me, I agree with him in many things… but that puts him at odds here! LOL
“But we still can try and follow the commandments” ‘To try’ is the key word here!
As I’ve told you I have an evangelic friend and I consider her an expert in the Bible… I think she tought like you once and know she thinks like Shalani.
If one only requires to believe in Jesus, I am “saved” already because I believe in him! I didn’t say otherwise. You only said that I had to believe in YOUR Jesus, which is the same as to believe in you instead of Jesus. The whole point of this chat was the question of pluralism, and that doesn’t go against believing in Jesus – So since there is no other requirement acording to you, I’m “saved”! Hurray!!
So as you’re not infallible and we could all be wrong, we really don’t know who will be saved.
Well, it doesn’t matter cause I think we are all going to be saved!! But please don’t listen to me! This is just the mumbling of an heretic :)
LikeLike
“As I’ve told you I have an evangelic friend and I consider her an expert in the Bible.”
Maybe you and your friend can read evangelical scholars and discuss. Your friendship is valuable. Her thoughts may be. But you’d do well to test to see if they match up.
If you really want to bolster your knowledge, I would recommend doing some study into the problems of post-modern thought, which seems to have influenced you significantly, especially as it intersects with Christian scholarship.
There is Truth, and He wants to be known, and is knowable.
LikeLike
Post modern though is as valid as yours… I’m not defending any religion, only the concept of “God Whitin”, which I think you have been unable to grasp the meaning.
Though Mohammed, for example, close to Jesus was nothing, because Jesus in my opinion was a much better person, there are good people everywhere, in all religions.
There is such thing as goodness which comes from love. This is the concept of “God Whitin”. This is marvelously explained in the Tolstoy book(one of the best writers ever). Please read it, it’s small. “Where Love is God Is.”
http://www.holytrinitynewrochelle.org/tolstoychristmas.html
Which Love? His Love? And as you can see, it can be virtually everywhere in spite the religion. Tolstoy was deeply Cristian, and he wrote several philosophical works about this. He was one of the pioneers of non resistance.
“Good is good even if no one’s doing it, evil is evil even if everyone’s doing it”
You can have Love inside you if you commit yourself to it. You’ll fail to be perfect, but that’s not the point, the point is to learn the truth about love. You can have this God whithin even if you don’t know your Bible. I think this “God Within” this quest for true Love is what will save us in the end.
I think this was the main message of Jesus, although you interpert the scripures diferently. Another thing which may help you understand my spirituality is the fact that I believe that near death experiences are true spiritual experiences.
As for my evangelic friend, I have much respect for her, she has a special spirituality which until now I haven’t seen in anyone else. I’ll be with her in November, and I’ll disscuss this with her.
LikeLike
I think the dividing line here is that evangelical Christians are committed to assessing God and his character using the laws of logic, logical arguments and empirical evidence. Evangelicals see religion as another category of knowledge, like math or chemistry. Postmoderns see religion as expressions of personal preference, and claims made by religions as subjective claims about individuals. Postmoderns deny that claims made by religions can be true about the external world. I think we need to recognize that everything that Alex says about religion is just his personal opinion, and everything authentic Christians say about religion are basically public testable truth claims that if true apply to all people regardless of personal opinions. Alex is telling us what flavor of ice cream he likes. We are telling him the way we think the world actually is, and supplying evidence. It’s two completely different views. One person is interested in the way God really is. The other is interested in feelings. And Christianity is the camp that you join when you believe in truth determined by an objective knowable reality, not truth determined by subjective feelings.
When these topics come up, I like to use examples like the origin of the universe and the crucifixion of Jesus. Either the universe had a beginning or it didn’t. Either Jesus died on a cross or he didn’t. Religions that make opposing claims can’t be right.
Alex thinks Christianity is ice cream – choose what you like. But authentic Christians believe that life is about knowing God as he is and serving God in accordance with his actual wishes. It’s not about people being happy, it’s about God being happy.
LikeLike
Wintery Knight although I have a lot of respect for you, for you seem to be a very educated person. I have had this discussion with Atheists and Agnostics, and I came to the conclusion that ultimately faith cannot be proven right or wrong, like science! You cannot prove the existence of God nor the infallibility of the Bible.
Matters of faith are indeed personal because they cant be proven. It is clear that God created this Universe for we to choose to believe in him or not. He did not gave us direct evidence of His existence.
I fight for the idea that it is more LIKELY for a God to exist than otherwise, and that I think can be proven. Nonetheless the likelyhood of something is no proof at all! So agnostics will remain agnostics…
My effort here to explain what I meant with “God within” is exactly because I think faith is personal, so you’re right about me there!
However you didn’t provided me with any “evidence” to support your point. You only stated what was you interpretation of the “facts” or “scriptures” or your “sources”. I have mine “facts” and my own “intepretation” which is the same as many other human beings.
Furthermore the Bible is written in a way that can hardly be literaly interpreted in many of it’s passages. Catholic theology asserts that and they study the Bible deeply. I’ve met some catholic theologists, and man… they are deeply philosofical about it… Even evangelics don’t interpert it literaly! It depends what ideia they want to come out of it! That’s because there are SO MANY “readings” of the Bible!
LikeLike
I agree that demonstrations of God are probabilistic. I am glad I didn’t tar you with some position you don’t hold.
OK, take the origin of the universe. Suppose a Theravata Buddhist says the universe exists eternally, and I counter with the expanding universe, the cosmic background radiation and the light element abundances, which prove the universe came into being out of nothing. Is he wrong about his religious views then? See, my point is that God exists independently of what he thinks. Have you seen the post I did on the Kalam argument? It’s in the page called “The Case for Christian theism”.
Oh, I think that some interpretations of the Bible are better than others. The good ones take genre, context, historical background, harmonization with other verses into account.
LikeLike
Wintery Knight… Love has no sustance… you cannot prove the existence of Love… you can only feel it… :)
IF you really take “historical background” to the matter, you cannot so easely dismiss Noah story as merely a copy of a more ancient Sumerian myth. Nor can you so easely dismiss the theory of evolution in light of all the evidence and accept the Big Bang instead (which at least has the same amount of uncertainty).
I will not say the buddist is right in your example, nor will I loose much time proving him wrong… because that is only a DETAIL of no importance in the end! We have to understand we are all children compared to God… babies even! We know so little… but it is in our grasp to know that the way to God it’s the way of self sacrifice, unconditional love, compassion, etc.
Gandhi said in is biography: “The seeker after truth should be humbler than the dust. The world crushes the dust under its feet, but the seeker after truth should be so humble himself that even the dust could crush him. Only then, and not till then, will he have a glimpse of the truth.” The more I learn about life the more I think this is true!!!
Yes I saw the post you’ve mentioned… it was because of that post that I am here! :) I think Kalam arguement is the most powerfull one for the existence of God!… but not the “evangelical God”! Only God the Conscient Creator, which created everything only by thinking it! Imagine a consioussness existing in nothingness (mind boggling!)
LikeLike
I’ll leave the Noah question for someone else. There can be no comparison between the evidence for MACRO-evolution and the Big Bang. The former has less evidence for it than the theory that the earth is flat. The latter is confirmed by scientific observations from multiple converging lines of inquiry, as I stated.
But the main thing to point out is that you think the Buddist is RIGHT to think the universe is eternal, and yet we know that it came into being from nothing. And this is exactly what I was trying to tell you. There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who love truth and want to arrange their lives according to the truth, and those who don’t love truth, and will not bend the knee to the real objective knowable state of affairs.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen a debate on the bodily resurrection of Jesus between a Christian and a non-Christian?
LikeLike
Don’t agree with you there… I believe Macro evolution is as real as the Big Bang. Have you seen the last discovery about Ardipithecus ramidus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
Shared genetic coding is hard evidence for evolution. If you agree with minor evolution you must agree with major evolution, because lots of minors cause majors in millions of years! http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/creationism/main.shtml
Again, this reality was made in such a way that it doesn’t need direct, visible God’s intervention. He created all at the First Moment with the “coding” necessary for the goals wanted. His intervention in this reality is much more subtle.
I don’t believe the Buddist is right… because I believe in the Big Bang… I only said that it’s not such a big deal! If he is a “good guy” I sure will not have the arrogance to say to him that if doesn’t believe in “me”, he’s not going to heaven. I’ll only discuss with him about the Universe in scientific terms, not spiritual.
“Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen a debate on the bodily resurrection of Jesus between a Christian and a non-Christian?” Nope! But I would have enjoyed it! :)
LikeLike