Christianity Is Too Exclusive

[jimmyjimmy]

Here is the first of 6 of the most common objections to Christianity (from a Western perspective) taken from: DECONSTRUCTING DEFEATER BELIEFS:Leading the Secular to Christ. By Tim Keller, Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church

Exclusivity​

The argument: "Christians seem to greatly over-play the differences between their faith and all the other ones. Though millions of people in other religions say they have encountered God, have built marvelous civilizations and cultures, and have had their lives and characters changed by their experience of faith, Christians insist that only they go to heaven — that their religion is the only one that is 'right' and true. The exclusivity of this is breath taking. It also appears to many to be a threat to international peace."

Brief response: "Inclusivism is really covert exclusivism. It is common to hear people say: "No one should insist their view of God better than all the rest. Every religion is equally valid." But what you just said could only be true if: First, there is no God at all, or second, God is an impersonal force that doesn't care what your doctrinal beliefs about him are. So as you speak you are assuming (by faith!) a very particular view of God and you are pushing it as better than the rest! That is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical, since you are doing the very thing you are forbidding. To say "all religions are equally valid" is itself a very white, Western view based in the European enlightenment's idea of knowledge and values. Why should that view be privileged over anyone else's?"

Please interact with the idea that "Inclusivism is really covert exclusivism". Do you see that in trying to be inclusive e.g. "all religions are the same", you are making your own exclusive claim?

 

[AV1611VET]

AMEN!

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Wow! I didn't think that I would win the point without a fight, but I take it.

 

[Ironhold]

You're calling it a win after only 24 hours?

Not cool.

There are a lot of discussions ongoing elsewhere, and so it's entirely possible that people simply haven't even seen this particular thread yet.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

You're calling it a win after only 24 hours?

Not cool.

There are a lot of discussions ongoing elsewhere, and so it's entirely possible that people simply haven't even seen this particular thread yet.

I was being a little provocative. I'm a bit cheeky, as my wife constantly reminds me.

Do you have an argument on this subject, yourself?

 

[Ironhold]

I was being a little provocative. I'm a bit cheeky, as my wife constantly reminds me.

Do you have an argument on this subject, yourself?

What kind of argument?

The threats of violence I've gotten from self-described "good Christians" who didn't like the fact that I'm a member of what they consider to be a "cult"?

Yeah.

That's the kind of "Christian exclusivity" I tend to run into: Christians who barely know their own faith yet "know" I'm not a "Christian".

 

[drstevej]

What kind of argument?

The threats of violence I've gotten from self-described "good Christians" who didn't like the fact that I'm a member of what they consider to be a "cult"?

Yeah.

That's the kind of "Christian exclusivity" I tend to run into: Christians who barely know their own faith yet "know" I'm not a "Christian".

Your belief system is not Christian and Mormonism is a cult and I think I have more than a passing understanding of my faith. BTW, I never have threatened violence on anyone. In fact, I desire you to forsake your Smith-made gospel and embrace the one delivered by Paul.

 

[Ironhold]

Your belief system is not Christian and Mormonism is a cult and I think I have more than a passing understanding of my faith. BTW, I never have threatened violence on anyone. In fact, I desire you to forsake your Smith-made gospel and embrace the one delivered by Paul.

Way to completely miss the point of what I was saying...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

What kind of argument

This is a debate forum. Do you have an argument against my OP? Not just the subject in general, but the subject as presented.

 

[Ironhold]

This is a debate forum. Do you have an argument against my OP? Not just the subject in general, but the subject as presented.

The OP misses a key point of the "exclusion" argument: the often vicious fashion in which members of various mainline Christian groups treat people who are not a part of their group.

When there's a cottage industry devoted to "Why [this group] Is Going To Hell" and "Why [that group] Is Going To Hell", that rather gives people the impression that mainline Christianity wants nothing to do with anyone who isn't like them.

 

[drstevej]

Nope it is warning folks who are on the road to perdition. Like a doctor telling a patient that he has a terminal illness unless he embraces the cure.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The OP misses a key point of the "exclusion" argument: the often vicious fashion in which members of various mainline Christian groups treat people who are not a part of their group.

When there's a cottage industry devoted to "Why [this group] Is Going To Hell" and "Why [that group] Is Going To Hell", that rather gives people the impression that mainline Christianity wants nothing to do with anyone who isn't like them.

This is both off topic, and not really contributing to a healthy debate on the OP. You might want to take your post to a general discussion forum. This forum has a very specific purpose with a very specific SoP.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope it is warning folks who are on the road to perdition. Like a doctor telling a patient that he has a terminal illness unless he embraces the cure.

The difference, off course, is that the doctor has an entire library of demonstrable medical science to back up his claims.

And he can actually demonstrate the desease to the patient.

In christianity, it is the religion itself that defines you as "sick", and then conveniently provides the only "cure".

This is the difference between an actual doctor and a snake-oil salesman.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

The difference, off course, is that the doctor has an entire library of demonstrable medical science to back up his claims.

And he can actually demonstrate the desease to the patient.

In christianity, it is the religion itself that defines you as "sick", and then conveniently provides the only "cure".

This is the difference between an actual doctor and a snake-oil salesman.

Off topic. Please address the OP, if you would like to. Otherwise, there are plenty of other forums in which you can bicker.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Off topic. Please address the OP, if you would like to. Otherwise, there are plenty of other forums in which you can bicker.

I was responding to an analogy.

If my response was off-topic, then so was the comment I was responding to.

Having said that, I don't feel particularly challenged by the OP. It kind of sounds like waging war with action figures.

I feel like any argument "against" theism that goes into the specifics of areligion is really already a bridge to far. Because that makes the specific religion in question to be "special" as opposed to all the others.

I disagree with that. Sure, we could start discussing the specifics of a specific religion till we turn blue in the face, with me explaining why certain specifics seem absurd to me while you try to defend/explain them.

But even if you would "win" every single of those points, we still haven't moved one inch forward on the question why this specific religion is any more special or valid then any other religion.

We'ld be right back where we started: a faith-based belief that can't be demonstrated to be correct or even only probable in any meaningfull way. At best, by winning every point concerning the specifics, you'll have shown that the ideas are "internally consistent". Which isn't much different from a well-thought out elaborate story like for example Star Wars or Stargate.

That's my stance on the entire religious topic: as long as "faith" is a requirement, I won't be convinced by it. So any belief system that requires "faith" to believe it, is ruled out at face value.

I don't consider faith to be a good reason/justification to believe something. In fact, it is the worst imaginable reason/justification to believe anything....

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't consider faith to be a good reason/justification to believe something. In fact, it is the worst imaginable reason/justification to believe anything....

Firstly, what is you definition of faith?

Secondly, when you disagree with Christian claims you do so because you hold to an alternate set of beliefs. Beliefs that are faith-based are inescapable.

All doubts are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt one belief except from a position of faith in another belief. For example, if you doubt Christianity because “There can’t be just one true religion,” this an act of faith! It can't be proven, and it is not a universal truth that everyone accepts.

You have faith, my friend. It's just misplaced.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Brief response: "Inclusivism is really covert exclusivism. It is common to hear people say: "No one should insist their view of God better than all the rest. Every religion is equally valid." But what you just said could only be true if: First, there is no God at all, or second, God is an impersonal force that doesn't care what your doctrinal beliefs about him are.

You are acting like it is known which religion is true, if any.

Religion is like a die that is thrown off the table. In the present moment we have no idea what number it has landed on, so every possibility is indeed equally valid, and the positive claim that any specific number has been rolled is entirely unjustified.

If somehow we knew a 4 was rolled, a person arguing for the 4 is not more logically justified than someone else arguing for a 6.

Stick with arguments from evidence. Without that, all religions are equally valid and to say otherwise is absurd.

 

[juvenissun]

What kind of argument?

The threats of violence I've gotten from self-described "good Christians" who didn't like the fact that I'm a member of what they consider to be a "cult"?

Yeah.

That's the kind of "Christian exclusivity" I tend to run into: Christians who barely know their own faith yet "know" I'm not a "Christian".

Totally missed the target.

The issue is not : Some Christians are too exclusive,
but is: Christianity is too exclusive.

It is about theology, not about believers.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is the first of 6 of the most common objections to Christianity (from a Western perspective) taken from: DECONSTRUCTING DEFEATER BELIEFS:Leading the Secular to Christ. By Tim Keller, Senior Pastor, Redeemer Presbyterian Church

Exclusivity​

The argument: ....

ANY monotheistic religion SHOULD exclusive. I have not seen one which is not.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

ANY monotheistic religion SHOULD exclusive. I have not seen one which is not.

I would go one step further: everyone is exclusive. For example, even if you are a polytheist, you believe that you are correct and that everyone else is incorrect.