Christianity Is Too Exclusive

[juvenissun]

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.

I guess polytheism might have a vacancy for any "unknown god". That is pretty inclusive.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I guess polytheism might have a vacancy for any "unknown god". That is pretty inclusive.

I understand, but they don't have room for ONE God, and only ONE God.

My point is that everyone thinks he's right, and that everyone should be as right as he is. Christians are accused of this, but it's inescapable for all people. It's universal.

 

[[serious]]

I understand, but they don't have room for ONE God, and only ONE God.

My point is that everyone thinks he's right, and that everyone should be as right as he is. Christians are accused of this, but it's inescapable for all people. It's universal.

If this is your take away from the op, it doesn't seem like much of a challenge. Any belief, religious or not, would likewise be rejection of that belief's logical negation. This is a principle of logic, not a failing of any particular religion.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

If this is your take away from the op, it doesn't seem like much of a challenge. Any belief, religious or not, would likewise be rejection of that belief's logical negation. This is a principle of logic, not a failing of any particular religion.

You might be not able to follow the argument. I'll explain. Christians are often accused of exclusivity. No one else thinks that he is; however, he is. That's the point of the OP.

 

[[serious]]

You might be not able to follow the argument. I'll explain. Christians are often accused of exclusivity. No one else thinks that he is; however, he is. That's the point of the OP.

Try formulating the whole argument in your own words. The OP was kind of rambling (inclusivity is really exclusivity?) and the followups have not been much more enlightening. I don't want to end up just talking past each other.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

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?

There are many different views about Christianity and its relationship to world religions. According to theologian Alister McGrath four broad approaches may be identified (2007:456-7):
1. Exclusivism or particularism which holds that only those who hear and respond to the Christian gospel may be saved.
2. Inclusivism which argues that although Christianity represents the normative revelation of God, salvation is nonetheless possible for those who belong to other traditions.
3. Pluralism which holds that all the religious traditions of humanity are equally valid paths to the same source of religious reality.
4. Parallelism which recognises the obvious differences between the religions and argues that each religion is to be seen as valid in that they achieve their own specific goals.

I very much prefer the fourth option. I think it's a much more honest approach to interfaith dialogue. I would recommend reading Mark Heim's Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (1995).

 

[[serious]]

There are many different views about Christianity and its relationship to world religions. According to theologian Alister McGrath four broad approaches may be identified (2007:456-7):
1. Exclusivism or particularism which holds that only those who hear and respond to the Christian gospel may be saved.
2. Inclusivism which argues that although Christianity represents the normative revelation of God, salvation is nonetheless possible for those who belong to other traditions.
3. Pluralism which holds that all the religious traditions of humanity are equally valid paths to the same source of religious reality.
4. Parallelism which recognises the obvious differences between the religions and argues that each religion is to be seen as valid in that they achieve their own specific goals.

I very much prefer the fourth option. I think it's a much more honest approach to interfaith dialogue. I would recommend reading Mark Heim's Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (1995).

Ok, I think after reading your response to the OP, I actually understand the OP better.

Here's my own approach:
1. A loving God who wishes to be known will make himself known to those who honestly seek.
2. Knowledge of God may be either central and important aspects, or secondary minutia. (Example, debating whether Adam and Eve had belly buttons)
3. Each individual should honestly seek the truth, both in physical and spiritual matters. They should accept the conclusions they are led to without fear or regret. If they have been honestly seeking, they will be led to the truth in all important spiritual matters.
4. No one should judge another's path. Though all should be encouraged to continue to seek and consider their own beliefs.

Religion, broadly speaking, should be treated akin to the scientific method. It is a method of revealing the truth, not a collection of facts to be memorized.

We are repeatedly instructed along these lines in the Bible as well. Romans 14, Luke 6, Matthew 7, James 4, all come down to the same principles. Do what you are convinced is right. Guard against hypocrisy. Do not presume to condemn on God's behalf.

As such, inclusive vs exclusive are irrelevant. I am responsible for my own faith, as is every man.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

There are many different views about Christianity and its relationship to world religions. According to theologian Alister McGrath four broad approaches may be identified (2007:456-7):
1. Exclusivism or particularism which holds that only those who hear and respond to the Christian gospel may be saved.
2. Inclusivism which argues that although Christianity represents the normative revelation of God, salvation is nonetheless possible for those who belong to other traditions.
3. Pluralism which holds that all the religious traditions of humanity are equally valid paths to the same source of religious reality.
4. Parallelism which recognises the obvious differences between the religions and argues that each religion is to be seen as valid in that they achieve their own specific goals.

I very much prefer the fourth option. I think it's a much more honest approach to interfaith dialogue. I would recommend reading Mark Heim's Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (1995).

This is off topic. The OP didn't ask for your opinion as to the above.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

This is off topic. The OP didn't ask for your opinion as to the above.

Oh, well to the point of inclusivism being simply a mask for exclusivism, I agree which is why I suggested reading Mark Heim's Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion. In it Heim finds the inclusivist position (that all religions lead to Christianity) as well as the pluralist position (that all religions lead to the same place) thoroughly disconcerting. Both, he argues, seem to be a species of the neo-colonialist and imperialist exclusivist position. Rather he argues that Christian beliefs and practices lead to Christian goals; Islam to Islamic goals; Buddhist to Buddhist; etc. The foundation for this perspective is an attempt to get rid of the inclination to force all religions into the one single system. This is why Heim's titled his book Salvations in the plural.

 

[[serious]]

This is off topic. The OP didn't ask for your opinion as to the above.

If that's off topic, I have no idea what you are talking about in the op. Maybe you should try asking a more specific question?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Oh, well to the point of inclusivism being simply a mask for exclusivism, I agree which is why I suggested reading Mark Heim's Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion.

I'm glad that you agree.

As far as the topic, it's really just about exposing an inconsistency with the argument against Christianity's exclusive truth claims. That's what I hope to specifically discuss with believers and unbelievers alike.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Firstly, what is you definition of faith?

To accept a claim without rational justification.
"Faith" is what you need when you want to accept a claim as true, but have no rational evidence to support it.

Secondly, when you disagree with Christian claims you do so because you hold to an alternate set of beliefs.

No, I do not.

For example, when a theist makes the claim "god kickstarted the universe". I don't believe that claim. I have no valid reason to accept it as correct.

But when asked what kickstarted the universe, I'ld have to say that I don't know.

Beliefs that are faith-based are inescapable.

I'ld love to hear what those beliefs are, in your opinion.

All doubts are really a set of alternate beliefs. You cannot doubt one belief except from a position of faith in another belief.

That is absolutely false.
I don't require an answer to every question in order to disagree with proposed answers to those questions.

Like I said above: I don't require a belief on how the universe kick started in order to disagree with the claim that it was the interdimensional unicorn that did it.

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.

Perhaps you should stick to the arguments that I actually make, instead of the "what-if"s that you pull out of your sleeves.

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

Faith in what?
Several times now you have made this claim, but not once did you actually say in what I supposedly have "faith".

Please, expand.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

I'm glad that you agree.

As far as the topic, it's really just about exposing an inconsistency with the argument against Christianity's exclusive truth claims. That's what I hope to specifically discuss with believers and unbelievers alike.

Yeah, that's why I offered the alternative.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

To accept a claim without rational justification.
"Faith" is what you need when you want to accept a claim as true, but have no rational evidence to support it.

From your previous post, I suspected that you would answer that way. Your understanding of faith is not correct, no wonder you think us nuts. Faith has its basis in evidence. It's based on data. People see data in differing ways. People see the same data in any where of life and science that you can name, but they come to differing conclusions. All data needs interpretation. The evidence for the resurrection of Christ, the Bible's explanation of the state of man and the world, its cure for what ails us, my conscience, creation, etc are all factors in one's placing trust in the claims of Christianity.

Faith and reason are not enemies. I have reasons for my faith.

No, I do not.

For example, when a theist makes the claim "god kickstarted the universe". I don't believe that claim. I have no valid reason to accept it as correct.

But when asked what kickstarted the universe, I'ld have to say that I don't know.

Then you are an agnostic? Otherwise you are placing your faith, yes, faith in an unknown. In an uncertainty. You cannot escape a faith-basis.

I'ld love to hear what those beliefs are, in your opinion.

That is absolutely false.
I don't require an answer to every question in order to disagree with proposed answers to those questions.

Like I said above: I don't require a belief on how the universe kick started in order to disagree with the claim that it was the interdimensional unicorn that did it.

You don't require one, but you have one. It's "I don't know". You are certain that there is no answer, which is a faith-based. If you are not certain of this, then you are an agnostic, no?

Perhaps you should stick to the arguments that I actually make, instead of the "what-if"s that you pull out of your sleeves.

Faith in what?
Several times now you have made this claim, but not once did you actually say in what I supposedly have "faith".

Please, expand.

What you believe about anything can not be empirically proven. Prove to yourself that you are not just the dream of a giant toad.

You live by faith all day every day.

You can't empirically prove the origins of the universe. Whatever view you hold to is one of faith.


***This is getting us a little off topic, by the way. I'll leave this response, but I have to reel it in moving forward. These threads are difficult to keep focused on the OP, which is what I hope to do. My fault.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Then you are an agnostic? Otherwise you are placing your faith, yes, faith in an unknown. In an uncertainty. You cannot escape a faith-basis.

Atheists don't know what happened before the Big Bang much like no one else can claim to know what happened.

 

[DogmaHunter]

From your previous post, I suspected that you would answer that way. Your understanding of faith is not correct, no wonder you think us nuts. Faith has its basis in evidence. It's based on data. People see data in differing ways. People see the same data in any where of life and science that you can name, but they come to differing conclusions. All data needs interpretation. The evidence for the resurrection of Christ, the Bible's explanation of the state of man and the world, its cure for what ails us, my conscience, creation, etc are all factors in one's placing trust in the claims of Christianity.

Faith and reason are not enemies. I have reasons for my faith.

No. Things that are concluded from data in a sound and rational way, is called "knowledge". Faith is not that.

Again, faith is what you require when you don't have the evidence to call it "knowledge".

Then you are an agnostic? Otherwise you are placing your faith, yes, faith in an unknown. In an uncertainty. You cannot escape a faith-basis.

No, it just means I'm honest.
When I don't know something, I just say that I don't know. Instead of just believe whatever claim on faith.

You don't require one, but you have one. It's "I don't know". You are certain that there is no answer, which is a faith-based. If you are not certain of this, then you are an agnostic, no?

Saying that you don't know is the only rational and honest answers to question that you don't know the answer to.

To state that saying "i don't know" is a faith-based claim..... I don't even know how to respond to that.

What you believe about anything can not be empirically proven. Prove to yourself that you are not just the dream of a giant toad.

Why are you asking me to prove a negative?

You live by faith all day every day.

Nope.
If there is no data to suggest that I'm just the dream of a giant toad, then there is no valid reason to believe such. As a rational result, I don't accept the claim.

Funnily enough, since there is no data to suggest that I'm just the dream of a giant toad, I would require faith to believe it.

You can't empirically prove the origins of the universe.

I'm not claiming to know what the origins of the universe were. Why would I need to empirically prove a claim that I'm not making?

Whatever view you hold to is one of faith.

Saying "i don't know" is NOT a view.
It's, in fact, expressing that you do NOT have a view. Because you don't know.

Do you understand the difference between actually knowing, claiming to know and admitting to not know?

It sounds like you don't.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Atheists don't know what happened before the Big Bang much like no one else can claim to know what happened.

Correct, but what they do "know", by faith, is that no God created it. Otherwise it would be an agnostic position, if he sticks to the claim that he truly does't know.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Correct, but what they do "know", by faith, is that no God created it. Otherwise it would be an agnostic position, if he sticks to the claim that he truly does't know.

One can not know what happened before the Big Bang and still disbelieve in God much like David Hume had no idea how life came into existence but still disbelieved in God. All of us, agnostics, atheists and theists don't know what happened before the Big Bang; the difference is that agnostics don't know if a deity exists, atheists don't believe a deity exists and theists believe a deity exists.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do you understand the difference between actually knowing, claiming to know and admitting to not know?

You refer to yourself as an atheist. That's a claim that there is no god. You are certain that God didn't create the physical universe, are you not? You are 100% sure of that, so you make that claim by faith because, by your own admission, you "do not know".

No. Things that are concluded from data in a sound and rational way, is called "knowledge". Faith is not that.

You do not come to any data without presuppositions. You think that scientists don't have these, that they are neutral, which is not possible. Look at climate change, for example. Scientists look at the same data yet come to different conclusions. That's the same in any field. Medicine, sociology, anthropology. . . it's the same in any field. Look at the same data, yet come to differ conclusions. To say otherwise is foolishness.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Correct, but what they do "know", by faith, is that no God created it.

No.

They just don't accept the claim of theists that a god created it.
Not accepting a claim as true is not a claim to knowledge.

It's just the expression that you aren't convinced that the claim in question is true.

Otherwise it would be an agnostic position, if he sticks to the claim that he truly does't know.

Agnosticism and atheism are different answers the different questions.
One does not rule out the other. In fact, the quantify one another.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

I'm not actually aware of any "gnostic atheists".

Agnosticism pertains to knowledge.
Atheism pertains to beliefs concerning theistic claims.

They are not the same thing.