Inclusive & Exclusive - Belief

Kindest Regards, Dondi!

Tolerance can only work is there is agreement that there is legitimacy in another religion.
Indeed. Many paths up the mountain. And as you and others have pointed out, some paths are not valid. But most are.

And as Thomas so correctly pointed out, there is the risk of confusing the mountain with the path. Acceptance, as I understand it, would be confusing the path for the mountain.
 
I agree with this too, Dondi and Juan. That is how I've arrived at pluralism, as opposed to universalism. Kind of responding to two different threads here, but universalism, as already pointed out, quickly becomes intolerant itself. It's just like any religion that says "now, if you will all just see the truth we have and accept it, there will be peace and unity." And of course to do this you must discard all the "superstitions" associated with your own faith.

We do choose what we include and exclude, and while it is a unifying thing in itself to see the commonalities shared by different belief systems, to say it is good to take this from here and that from there and come up with a one-size fits-all religion would be like trying to build an airplane from things you find lying around your house.

peace,
lunamoth
 
taijasi,

I get what you are saying. My feeling is that God will not love you any less if you were to tell Him off (i.e FU, go f---- yourself), though He might be upset as much as a parent is upset when their child misbehaves. A parent will geneally love his bratty child regardless of circumstance.

I will go as far as saying that when we have that streak of rebellion in us, we become quite out of tune with God. It's all wrapped up in our relationship which is guided by a universal moral code that when we stray, we end up harming ourselves and others. Afterall, we are the ones who move, not God.

I've been in the zone. Do you know what I mean? I also know when I've fallen out, and therefore need to get back "in tune" with God. Fortunately, God is willing to forgive and forget, but we have to take any rebellion seriously and endeavor to try and not repeat those mistakes (very easier said than done). When we get back to that zone, we can enjoy the manifest Love of God once more.
 
lunamoth said:
I agree with this too, Dondi and Juan. That is how I've arrived at pluralism, as opposed to universalism. Kind of responding to two different threads here, but universalism, as already pointed out, quickly becomes intolerant itself. It's just like any religion that says "now, if you will all just see the truth we have and accept it, there will be peace and unity." And of course to do this you must discard all the "superstitions" associated with your own faith.

We do choose what we include and exclude, and while it is a unifying thing in itself to see the commonalities shared by different belief systems, to say it is good to take this from here and that from there and come up with a one-size fits-all religion would be like trying to build an airplane from things you find lying around your house.

peace,
lunamoth

Peace, lunamoth!

Can you expound on what you mean by pluralism and contrast this with universalism? I'm just unfamiliar with that term.
 
Dondi said:
Peace, lunamoth!

Can you expound on what you mean by pluralism and contrast this with universalism? I'm just unfamiliar with that term.

Hi Dondi, well, from what I've read in your posts you also seem to have come to pluralism. Pluralism, as I understand it, acknowledges and respects the truth found in other religions, without trying to change or reinterpret them from the outside, without condemning or belittling the beliefs that are different, even when they are drasctically different from one's own. At the same time a pluralist does not compromise their own faith and beliefs by watering them down to accomodate the differences between religions.

In my heart I may think something like "somehow, in a way I don't understand, other religions are also working through Christ and with the Holy Spirit to glorify God." I think evangelization is done by acting out God's command to love and have compassion, not preaching or worrying aobut whether someone else is "saved" of not. My understanding of a valid path is whether or not it followes the Love commandments, and what the fruits of that path are. If they point to self, or to something other than God, I am suspect. That would be my reason for rejecting that path, and, like in marriage, I don't worry about what other people are doing but just focus on my own relationship with God.

Likewise, I get rather irritated when someone from another religion or denomination tries to tell me that I, and all Christians, do not really understand Christ or what He was all about. So, I wouldn't want to do that to someone else.

Anyway, there are a few good threads about pluralism here at CR. I will try to look them up for you.

peace,
lunamoth
 
lunamoth said:
Hi Dondi, well, from what I've read in your posts you also seem to have come to pluralism. Pluralism, as I understand it, acknowledges and respects the truth found in other religions, without trying to change or reinterpret them from the outside, without condemning or belittling the beliefs that are different, even when they are drasctically different from one's own. At the same time a pluralist does not compromise their own faith and beliefs by watering them down to accomodate the differences between religions.

In my heart I may think something like "somehow, in a way I don't understand, other religions are also working through Christ and with the Holy Spirit to glorify God." I think evangelization is done by acting out God's command to love and have compassion, not preaching or worrying aobut whether someone else is "saved" of not. My understanding of a valid path is whether or not it followes the Love commandments, and what the fruits of that path are. If they point to self, or to something other than God, I am suspect. That would be my reason for rejecting that path, and, like in marriage, I don't worry about what other people are doing but just focus on my own relationship with God.

Likewise, I get rather irritated when someone from another religion or denomination tries to tell me that I, and all Christians, do not really understand Christ or what He was all about. So, I wouldn't want to do that to someone else.

Anyway, there are a few good threads about pluralism here at CR. I will try to look them up for you.

peace,
lunamoth

Thanks, lunamoth.


I dare say, you have me summed up pretty well. And I agree with you about others following a valid path if they fulfill the Love commandments, and that self-serving or obviously rebellious religion isn't going to be a valid path. My hope is that anyone truly seeking God will find a fullfilling relationship with Him, regardless of what religion they are. I dare say, it's not religion that will get you there. It's the attitude of your heart toward's God. Each man or woman must seek God in there whole heart. A religion is a means to accomplish this. But having said that, I think some religions are closer than others in helping to facilitate this relationship between the individual and God, but that's strictly IMO. I could be wrong, but I have no other reference really that the one I have chosen, which seems to work quite well, for me at least. I can only boast in knowing God's love in my life, not that I have a corner in God or think I'm better than anyone else (I'm trying to be humble, here). I would that everyone would know the Love of God in their hearts as I've experienced.
 
pluralism v. dualistic thinking... I love the definition of pluralism expressed, very similar v. dualism I'm right and you're wrong. Are we eliminating the judgement of right and wrong and accepting that everything just is?
 
wil said:
pluralism v. dualistic thinking... I love the definition of pluralism expressed, very similar v. dualism I'm right and you're wrong. Are we eliminating the judgement of right and wrong and accepting that everything just is?

Right or wrong, to me, have to do with moral issues. If a person isn't trying to live right or seeking God's will (or whatever is the ultimate ideal) his religion dictates, then he's missing out. My point is that one needs to know God morally, rather than just dogmatically. The realization of God's Love, whether emotive or active, is dependant on our actions or thoughts in relation to the moral code. It's like being married, you have to work at keeping your marriage pure and fulfilling by abiding by the vows you committed yourself to, or it will grow stale or worse, deterioate.
 
Here is one thread on pluralism.

and another

url=http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2965&highlight=pluralism]and another[/url]

Universalism (from wiki):

Universalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Universalism refers to concepts and issues which are said to be "universal" in appeal—i.e. transcending any existing localizing boundaries. The term may refer to:

In comparative religion, universalism is the belief that true and valuable insights are available in many of the religious traditions which have grown up in various human cultures. It posits that a spiritually aware person will respect religious traditions other than his own and will be open to learning from them. It does not deny that immersion in one tradition is a useful anchor for an individual's spiritual development. While it celebrates the richness and value to be found among humankind's religious traditions, it does not necessarily deny that some things done in the name of religion, and some religious practices, are not constructive. But it distinguishes itself from the view that there is only one true faith, one uniquely chosen people, or one final prophet superseding all others. The name Universalist refers to certain religious denominations of universalism, which as a core principle adhere to standards and rituals which are convergent rather than divergent, often espousing themselves as alternatives to denominations based on dogmatic or factionalized differences.

A universal religion is one that holds itself true for all people; it thus allows all to join, regardless of ethnicity. In contrast, ethnic religions, like ethnicity itself, can be determined not just by genealogy, but by geography, language, and other social boundaries. In that sense Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are universal religions. Sikhism would also fit this description too although like Judaism, it is only practiced by a minority of people. Judaism is also universal in this sense; according to Jewish tradition, there is no requirement for non-Jews to convert, only for them to follow the Noahide Laws. Contrast with Chosen people.

Universalism is also used as a synonym for moral universalism, as a compromise between moral relativism and moral absolutism.

Universalism can also mean the wish for a closer union between all people of the world (the emergence of world citizens) and/or the aim of creating common global institutions (democratic globalization)

Universalism may be associated with Catholicism, through the etymology of the Greek "katholicos", meaning "universal". The term Catholic originally referred to its "One Church" model as a "universal church", for all to participate. However, in Catholic theology, Universalism is the name of a heresy (see below).

In Christianity, Universalism, Universal reconciliation, or universal salvation, is the doctrine that all will be saved. Among theologians the doctrine is often referred to using the Greek word apocatastasis. The doctrine addresses the problem of Hell and notions of God's mercy and justice. Universalists contend that a loving God would not submit anyone, regardless of his or her sins or beliefs, to everlasting torment. Some also argue that eternal condemnation in Hell, an infinite punishment, is not proportionately just with any number of essentially finite sins. Scriptural support includes Biblical passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:22 and Revelation 5:13. Some universalists, sometimes called "strong universalists," hold that all creatures, including demons and even Satan himself, will eventually be saved. In North America, some adherents formed the Universalist Church, which in 1961 merged with the American Unitarian Association to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.

In Ananda Marga, Universalism refers to the ideas that energy and matter are evolved from cosmic consciousness. Thus, all created beings are of one universal family. This is an expansion of humanism to include everything as family, based on fundamental truth that the universe is a thought projection from the Supreme.

So, pluralism and universalism are not necessarily at odds. For example,I agree with the universalism as it's described in the first paragraph and some of the other uses above, but I distance myself from Christian Universalism (as in the UUs) because this strikes me as a watering down of Christian theology. I also do not agree with Ananda Marga because is sounds too much like pseudoscience for my tastes.

I think much of the disagreement we've seen lately here at CR is not over universalism, but to the idea of a single universal religion. I reject this idea because it is either too relativistic or because it would be a man-made "compromise" religion. A religion based upon science would be a religion with humans as it's center and focus, our own power worshiped as God.

peace,
lunamoth
 
wil said:
pluralism v. dualistic thinking... I love the definition of pluralism expressed, very similar v. dualism I'm right and you're wrong. Are we eliminating the judgement of right and wrong and accepting that everything just is?
I don't understand what you mean, wil.
 
Pluralism, from wiki:

Religious pluralism is a loosely defined term concerning peaceful relations between different religions, and is used in a number of related ways:

To refer to the worldview that one's religion is not the sole and exclusive source of truth, and that some level of truth and value exists in at least some other religions.

As a synonym for ecumenism. At a minimum, ecumenism is the promotion of unity, co-operation, or improved understanding between different denominations within the same religion, or sometimes between different religions. The latter is sometimes called Macro-ecumenism.

As a synonym for religious tolerance, which is a condition of harmonious co-existence between adherents of different religions or religious denominations.

The whole wiki page is worth a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_pluralism

peace,
lunamoth
 
Dondi said:
I know this is an extreme example, but if as a Christian, for example, if I view Buddhism as spiritually dangerous because it doesn't espouse a belief in Christ and thus I view anyone who believes in Buddhism must be lost, then I am intolerant of that religion, not because I desire to see Buddhists go to Hell, but because the preconception based on my own religious orientation leads me to believe so.

Tolerance can only work is there is agreement that there is legitimacy in another religion.

i would say it more like this: i accept it for you, but i do not accept it for me. or we agree to disagree. i have noticed a couple of different reasons why people choose to exclude God from their beliefs & refuse to love Him, that does not mean i have to whatever the reasons are for them. as for eternity, God is going to sort all that out & we dont have to.
in my belief Jesus & the saints will be there also.

so, people choose not to be included in that number in my belief- they are free to exclude that belief. the problem is too often they want me to exclude my belief & eternal home & salvation with Jesus & through Jesus as being valid or to deny Jesus or say i am exclusive because of my personal belief. well, too bad. because no one is going get me to exclude Jesus & the bible or the promises God has made- in my beliefs.

hope that makes sense.
 
all pluralism really does is focus on the common beliefs everyone share & can be explained in different terms or understanding.
it does not address the differences very well. IMO
 
lunamoth said:
We do choose what we include and exclude, and while it is a unifying thing in itself to see the commonalities shared by different belief systems, to say it is good to take this from here and that from there and come up with a one-size fits-all religion would be like trying to build an airplane from things you find lying around your house.

peace,
lunamoth

i got a good chuckle out of that.

the one size fits all religion:D . lets start with my braun toothbrush:)
that reminds me of an old choir song called Savior Jesus, Pilot me.
then we would have to decide/choose who is going to pilot the airplane.
 
Bandit said:
all pluralism really does is focus on the common beliefs everyone share & can be explained in different terms or understanding.
it does not address the differences very well. IMO

That's the point, Bandit. To hold one's own religion as sacred and true, without condmening others for their differences. It is not suggesting that the religions merge or do away with all differences, it does not suggest a Christianity without the death and resurrection of Christ, or without the Bible. It leaves Christianity intact as it leaves all other religions intact. It's basically a worldview of respect for other religions.

peace,
lunamoth
 
Bandit said:
i would say it more like this: i accept it for you, but i do not accept it for me. or we agree to disagree. i have noticed a couple of different reasons why people choose to exclude God from their beliefs & refuse to love Him, that does not mean i have to whatever the reasons are for them. as for eternity, God is going to sort all that out & we dont have to.
in my belief Jesus & the saints will be there also.

so, people choose not to be included in that number in my belief- they are free to exclude that belief. the problem is too often they want me to exclude my belief & eternal home & salvation with Jesus & through Jesus as being valid or to deny Jesus or say i am exclusive because of my personal belief. well, too bad. because no one is going get me to exclude Jesus & the bible or the promises God has made- in my beliefs.

hope that makes sense.

I'm not excluding you from your beliefs. If you want to believe that Jesus is the only way and that you accept Him as your Savior and Lord. Well, hallelujah! Praise the Lord! You just keep your faith strong. You keep loving the Lord with all your heart. I'm not trying to disprove the Bible or Jesus. I do think Jesus as the Savior. I also get the impression that God works in the heart of those who aren't Christian. For whatever reason, they may haven't recognized Jesus is the Savior, but their could be a myriad of reasons for this. maybe they were taught erronious teaching about Christ (for example, they were propmised a healing from their church that never came), so they were disillusioned with Christainity and sought God elsewhere. But God know their heart and I believe He takes these things into account. God judges the heart.

But you keep on believing like you do, if it brings you closer to God. I never asked you to change nor am I excluding the idea of Jesus being the only way, I just look at that "way" a bit differently than you do, that's all. Can you repect that?
 
Kindest Regards, Luna!
lunamoth said:
That's the point, Bandit. To hold one's own religion as sacred and true, without condmening others for their differences. It is not suggesting that the religions merge or do away with all differences, it does not suggest a Christianity without the death and resurrection of Christ, or without the Bible. It leaves Christianity intact as it leaves all other religions intact. It's basically a worldview of respect for other religions.

Thank you for all of that. I didn't realize "respectful tolerance" had another name. Pluralism...I kinda like that.
 
lunamoth said:
It's basically a worldview of respect for other religions.

peace,
lunamoth
right.
i pretty much have tried to always respect before pluralism ever arrived. it is also regarded as another religious doctrine by some & that is what i am careful of.
 
Bandit said:
right.
i pretty much have tried to always respect before pluralism ever arrived. it is also regarded as another religious doctrine by some & that is what i am careful of.
Hi Bandit, from getting to know you over the past couple of years I would have said that you are a pluralist in the sense that I use it. I just did not want to put words in your mouth.

peace,
lunamoth
 
Back
Top