Coexist?

[tulc]

Research evil and heresy.

uhmm...why?
tulc(just curious)

 

[Sophrosyne]

As an aside, why do I usually see "save the planet" stickers all over ancient VW vans which probably get about 8 MPG and pollute like crazy?

My dad had a 69 VW van and it got 20mpg, but was not a comfortable van to drive, very underpowered, no AC, heater took half an hour to do anything and was hard to keep on the road when windy plus it had a governor that didn't allow it to go over 75 (as if it could do that except off a cliff).

 

[Hentenza]

John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

This verse expresses an absolute truth of Christianity. All others that deny this can not possibly be correct. We can live in peace with other religions, as I do, however, there is no theological commonality to share.

Coexist is an attempt to convince many that all religions are paths to God. That is not the case and is irreconcilable with Christianity.

 

[Cabal]

Coexist is an attempt to convince many that all religions are paths to God. That is not the case and is irreconcilable with Christianity.

It's funny that this claim keeps being made and yet still no evidence for this has been provided by anyone - the only attempt being some bumper stickers which don't even prove the claim being posited anyway.*

Yet apparently honking about universalism enough without any evidence at all is enough to get the thread dubbed "unorthodox theology".

What are people so scared about?

*Edit: I forgot to add "or attempting to redefine the meaning of the word "Coexist", but frankly, no-one needs to take Orwellian garbage like that seriously."

 

[Octorock]

Do to others as you want them to do to you.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Sorry I don't have my sources handy.

 

[cubinity]

Virgin birth - this is essential otherwise Jesus would have been born out of sin.

So, sin is passed through the DNA in the sperm, but the organelles within the egg are pure and sinless. Interesting analysis, but I'm not seeing it Biblically or physically making sense.

Even with Jesus being the bi-product of virgin conception, a sex act by Mary while pregnant would result in his being born be sin? Is that because sex within the boundaries of marriage is sinful? While I am not denying the Virgin Birth, I'm not seeing how the absence of one results in the other.

The deity of Jesus as the Son of God - if you deny Jesus as God, then you deny Him as Savior.

The Bible tells us God raised Jesus from the dead, and by that act, Jesus becomes our Savior. This does not necessitate Jesus being divine. Again, while I am not denying Jesus' divinity, I fail to see how the denial of one is denial of the other.

I would encourage you to look again at Paul's arguments for Jesus as our Savior. You will be hard-pressed to find that he depends on the deity of Jesus to form those arguments.

Sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus - we are justified by the grace of God alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Salvation comes through the blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins. That is the Gospel - add anything thing to that and you are accursed.

What if we add the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, Christ's resurrection and his 2nd coming? Do those additions not curse us?

You can't argue in favor of a list a requirements, and then label only one of those requirements as the only requirement, and that the addition of the rest of the list will curse you. That's what we call a self-defeating argument.

Infallibility of the Bible - if you do not accept the Bible as the absolute authority on morality and salvation, and you do not accept it as without error, you make God out to be imperfect and insufficient to do what He says He did, what He is doing, and what He will do. Most certainly, one who is new in the faith may not accept this to be true, but as they grow in the faith they will learn that indeed the Bible is without error.

Or, I acknowledge the Bible for what it claims to be, a useful testimony breathed by God. See 2 Timothy 3:16. It never calls Scripture inerrant. To get to that, you have to make a few assumptions, and I'm not ready to curse others over assumptions.

I would encourage you to check out the historical development of the inerrancy doctrine. I have found that it has a very late development, and I must answer in my heart for all of those faithful saints who believed in Jesus prior to the development and codification of this doctrine. If I say such belief is essential, then I must curse them in their faith, and by doing so, curse myself. I am unwilling to do that.

While I am not denying the inerrancy of the Bible, I do not see how the denial of this doctrine is at all disrespectful to the God who breathed it.

Christ's resurrection - Paul said if there is no resurrection, then we believe in vain. If there is no resurrection and the only hope is the life we have now, then we are the most pitiful of all men.

Yeah, okay.

2nd Coming - to deny Christ will come again is to call Him a liar.

What you mean by 2nd coming, and what others believe about the 2nd coming may completely differ.

To expect every Christian to adhere to just one interpretation of the Bible is somewhat unreasonable, as not even the authors of the Bible adhered to agreement on every point.

For example, consider when Jesus says in John 14:2-4, "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." He is not saying this in a vacuum. These are the standardized words for a Jewish proposal. They are the equivalent of, "Will you marry me?" He is making a proposal to his people, not literally promising to return.

Under your standards, I am cursed by that interpretation, which is frustratingly unrealistic, particularly since the action by Jesus that saves me is so much more substantial than my action of interpreting differently than you do.

I'm not saying any of your beliefs about God, Jesus or the Bible are wrong. I'm just saying that your expectation that others be judged according to your beliefs is not only misguided, but in my opinion contrary to at least one of the teachings accredited to Jesus in the Bible. While you are entirely welcome to your opinions about how Jesus judges us, I would rethink one or two if I were you. Particular since Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 7:2, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

 

[airō]

So, sin is passed through the DNA in the sperm, but the organelles within the egg are pure and sinless. Interesting analysis, but I'm not seeing it Biblically or physically making sense.

Even with Jesus being the bi-product of virgin conception, a sex act by Mary while pregnant would result in his being born be sin? Is that because sex within the boundaries of marriage is sinful? While I am not denying the Virgin Birth, I'm not seeing how the absence of one results in the other.

Because Mary was impregnated before she was married. Had this not been done by the Holy Spirit, then she would have been pregnant by a man out of wedlock, thus fornicating, thus Jesus would have been born as a result of a sinful act.

The Bible tells us God raised Jesus from the dead, and by that act, Jesus becomes our Savior. This does not necessitate Jesus being divine. Again, while I am not denying Jesus' divinity, I fail to see how the denial of one is denial of the other.

I would encourage you to look again at Paul's arguments for Jesus as our Savior. You will be hard-pressed to find that he depends on the deity of Jesus to form those arguments.

Only God is holy. Only God is righteous. Jesus was the spotless Lamb. Only Jesus is holy and righteous. Jesus is God. God is Savior. Jesus is Savior. God is I AM. Jesus is I AM. God is Lord. Jesus is Lord. Confessing Jesus is Lord is required for salvation. To deny this fact denies the Christ.

What if we add the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, Christ's resurrection and his 2nd coming? Do those additions not curse us?

You can't argue in favor of a list a requirements, and then label only one of those requirements as the only requirement, and that the addition of the rest of the list will curse you. That's what we call a self-defeating argument.

We are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. The list doesn't add anything, the list merely defines who God is. If you do not believe Jesus is God or that He is resurrected from the dead, you believe in a different jesus and thus are not saved.

Or, I acknowledge the Bible for what it claims to be, a useful testimony breathed by God. See 2 Timothy 3:16. It never calls Scripture inerrant. To get to that, you have to make a few assumptions, and I'm not ready to curse others over assumptions.

I would encourage you to check out the historical development of the inerrancy doctrine. I have found that it has a very late development, and I must answer in my heart for all of those faithful saints who believed in Jesus prior to the development and codification of this doctrine. If I say such belief is essential, then I must curse them in their faith, and by doing so, curse myself. I am unwilling to do that.

While I am not denying the inerrancy of the Bible, I do not see how the denial of this doctrine is at all disrespectful to the God who breathed it.

John 1 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Denying the inerrancy of Scripture denies the perfection of the Son. There is a difference in being ignorant to this truth versus outright rejecting it. Rejecting it reduces your belief to relativism.

Yeah, okay.

1 Corinthians 15 12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

What you mean by 2nd coming, and what others believe about the 2nd coming may completely differ.

Notice I did not put limits on defining the 2nd coming. There is indeed a physical return of Jesus Christ - the timing is a secondary issue.

To expect every Christian to adhere to just one interpretation of the Bible is somewhat unreasonable, as not even the authors of the Bible adhered to agreement on every point.

Now you are suggesting a contradiction? Who is the author of the Bible?

For example, consider when Jesus says in John 14:2-4, "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going." He is not saying this in a vacuum. These are the standardized words for a Jewish proposal. They are the equivalent of, "Will you marry me?" He is making a proposal to his people, not literally promising to return.

Thus one of the dangers of the allegorical hermeneutic. Consistent literal interpretation is the only one that makes sense throughout the Bible. The Golden Rule of Interpretation:

when the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.

Under your standards, I am cursed by that interpretation, which is frustratingly unrealistic, particularly since the action by Jesus that saves me is so much more substantial than my action of interpreting differently than you do.

Again, there is a difference in being ignorant of this fundamental truth versus outright rejecting it. Full preterism is heresy.

I'm not saying any of your beliefs about God, Jesus or the Bible are wrong. I'm just saying that your expectation that others be judged according to your beliefs is not only misguided, but in my opinion contrary to at least one of the teachings accredited to Jesus in the Bible. While you are entirely welcome to your opinions about how Jesus judges us, I would rethink one or two if I were you. Particular since Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 7:2, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

I make no claims to judge anyone. But one cannot be a Christian and say that Christ was not resurrected. If there is no resurrection of the dead, then we all turn to dust and there is no afterlife. Do you disagree?

The essentials are black and white. While things like the 2nd coming, infallibility of Scripture, or virgin birth are more fundamental and not necessarily essential for one to understand in order to be saved (i.e. these may be learned later), the deity of Jesus, the blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins, salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, and the resurrection are absolutely critical and essential for one to understand in order to be saved.

 

[airō]

John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

This verse expresses an absolute truth of Christianity. All others that deny this can not possibly be correct. We can live in peace with other religions, as I do, however, there is no theological commonality to share.

Coexist is an attempt to convince many that all religions are paths to God. That is not the case and is irreconcilable with Christianity.

 

[airō]

From the horse's mouth:

Coexist Foundation » Home

"I am convinced this is one of the most helpful methods of improving integration."
Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, Chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee, the Muslim Council of Britain

"God has given us many faiths but only one world in which to co-exist. May your work help all of us to cherish our commonalities and feel enlarged by our differences."
Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations

"[This] work is a vital test of our determination to find new ways of managing conflict in the new world order."
The Bishop of London

To promote for the benefit of the public, religious harmony between Jews, Christians and Muslims by encouraging among them a greater understanding and appreciation of each other’s distinctive faith, beliefs, and practices and their common ground. And to this end also to promote friendship, goodwill and mutual trust among them.

 

[tulc]

From the horse's mouth:

Coexist Foundation » Home

...I'm curious which parts of the above you find objectionable?
tulc(just wondering)

 

[Octorock]

From the horse's mouth:

Coexist Foundation » Home

I know you haven't been reading anything I've posted, but are you even reading any of the quotes that you post? Not one of those refers to universalism, or the idea that "many paths lead to God." Every single one of those quotes is talking about PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, which, for some reason, you seem to be against.

First of all, look under "About the Foundation" in that website you just linked to to see what they're really about (although you'll probably just mistake that for unaversalism too). Then, look up the word "coexist" in the dictionary (since you ignored it when I posted it.) Then read what in the Bible what Jesus has to say about how we are to treat others--not only our neighbors and brothers, but our enemies as well (I posted that earlier but you seem to have ignored that as well). If you still believe that peaceful coexistence is strictly a universalist belief, then I feel sorry for you, your family, your friends, your co-workers, and all other acquaintances in your life.

Universalism does not have a monopoly on peace. That's actually a central theme to Christianity, and if you've read any of the words attributed to the man that Christianity is based off of, you'd know that. And just because another belief system holds a value, doesn't automatically mean that the value is no longer true or good. I'm sure many universalists also believe that it's good to help out the needy. Does that automatically make it non-christian and un-biblical?

...I'm curious which parts of the above you find objectionable?

I'm wondering that too....

 

[airō]

I know you haven't been reading anything I've posted, but are you even reading any of the quotes that you post? Not one of those refers to universalism, or the idea that "many paths lead to God." Every single one of those quotes is talking about PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, which, for some reason, you seem to be against.

First of all, look under "About the Foundation" in that website you just linked to to see what they're really about (although you'll probably just mistake that for unaversalism too). Then, look up the word "coexist" in the dictionary (since you ignored it when I posted it.)

Let's break them down:

"I am convinced this is one of the most helpful methods of improving integration." Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, Chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee, the Muslim Council of Britain

Interfaith integration is pretty self-explanatory.

"God has given us many faiths but only one world in which to co-exist. May your work help all of us to cherish our commonalities and feel enlarged by our differences." Sir Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations

God has only given us one faith through His Son Jesus Christ.

"[This] work is a vital test of our determination to find new ways of managing conflict in the new world order." The Bishop of London

In the last days there will an official one world religion, and it will be a mix of everything except for Biblical Christianity.

Then read what in the Bible what Jesus has to say about how we are to treat others--not only our neighbors and brothers, but our enemies as well (I posted that earlier but you seem to have ignored that as well). If you still believe that peaceful coexistence is strictly a universalist belief, then I feel sorry for you, your family, your friends, your co-workers, and all other acquaintances in your life.

You clearly did not read the OP:

"If you are one who believes all religions should coexist peacefully, I agree with you. Christians especially must express their love for all people in word and deed. We are to be the salt and light of this world, else how will the lost see the love of Jesus Christ but through His own children? Unfortunately, however, coexisting in the name of tolerance and moral relativism is impossible as there is only one God and one path through His Son Jesus Christ. Ultimately, darkness and light contradict one anotheras Ephesians 6:12 says, 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age,[a] against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places."

 

[Octorock]

"If you are one who believes all religions should coexist peacefully, I agree with you.

Then what are you even arguing about? That's exactly what the bumper sticker and that website are promoting. No more, no less.

You seem to be splitting hairs over semantics, but I believe that you are putting meanings into the words of others that was not intended.

I am convinced this is one of the most helpful methods of improving integration." Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, Chairman of the Interfaith Relations Committee, the Muslim Council of Britain

"Integration" does not mean that everyone compromises their faith. They're referring to people of different faiths working together and bring about good things together. This is possible, and it is a good thing! A Christian and a Muslim can work together to help build an orphanage. That doesn't mean that the Christian has to concede his beliefs to Islam to do that.

God has given us many faiths

...I didn't see on the website where it also claims "and all of these faiths are equally valid paths to God." Those are words you put into their mouth.

[This] work is a vital test of our determination to find new ways of managing conflict in the new world order.

I think you highlighted the wrong words. The key point in that sentence is "to find ways of managing conflict." Whatever you insist "new world order" means in that sentence (and I don't see any evidence that they are referring to a new religion,) the "new world order" isn't their goal,i t's "managing conflict". And in case you might interperet those words as well, they're referring to either reducing or eliminating conflict, not creating it.

And this is all a red herring. There is no evidence that the website you linked to is related in any way to the bumper sticker, other than the name of the organization. "Coexist" is a real word with a real meaning. They didn't invent the word, and they didn't invent it's meaning. It's possible that one or more person or group might use that word, and without further clarification from those people or groups, there is no reason to believe that the word means anything other than what it has always meant in every other situation (except for whatever meanings you have attributed to the word in this thread.)

So if you're going to say, as you did in this thread, that you support coexistance, then there is no point to this thread. If the intent of the thread was a conversation on universalism, which is what the majority of your posts in this thread appear to be discussing, then the title of the thread should have been "Universalism?", and you could have probably done without demonizing anyone that uses the word "coexist" and insisting that they mean something that there is no evidence they mean.

 

[airō]

Octorock - if you are coexisting, are you also sharing your faith in Jesus Christ with those of religion? I actually have a Coexist tract that I find useful. What do you think? This is the front of the tract:

And here is the back of the tract:

World Peace! Isn't that something that we all long for? Religion is the cause of so much war, division and hate mongering these days! Wouldn't the world just be better without religion altogether? The COEXIST movement exists to unite the world religions. Is that a realistic idea though? They are different in so many ways. Of all the religions, Christianity is probably the most exclusive. They believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to God and to Heaven! What would Jesus think of the COEXIST movement? Listen to what He said in Matthew 10:34, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." In context He is talking about division between Christians and non-Christians. Are you on your way to Heaven according to Jesus? Let's find out: Ever lied? Stolen? Looked with lust? Had sex outside of marriage? Gotten Drunk? If you have done these things, then you are a liar, a thief, an adulterer (Matt. 5:28), a fornicator and a drunkard. You are on your way to Hell according to Jesus! But, that's not His will for you. He lived a sinless, perfect life and performed many miracles. He laid down his life into the hands of wicked men. They beat, bruised and crucified Him. He died and was buried, but He rose on the 3rd day! Now He commands ALL to Repent of their sins, Trust Him and Obey Him. He IS the ONLY WAY to get forgiveness of your sins. He IS the ONLY WAY to the Father and to Heaven. Forget about world peace for a second. YOU need to find PEACE with God! If you don't, you will remain in your sins and remain an enemy of God. Get right with God before it's too late for you! The Biblical Jesus

 

[PTruitt]

You've all seen them... blood sacrifice....an eternity of damnation

And I thought I was 'unorthodox'... Blood theology is a God's Universe from the greatest commandment, in my opinion. It desecrates God's Love and is thwarting the opportunity to experience God's Paradise in the present..."on Earth, as it is in Heaven".

 

[airō]

And I thought I was 'unorthodox'... Blood theology is a God's Universe from the greatest commandment, in my opinion. It desecrates God's Love and is thwarting the opportunity to experience God's Paradise in the present..."on Earth, as it is in Heaven".

Do you believe the Bible to be true?

 

[Octorock]

Octorock - if you are coexisting, are you also sharing your faith in Jesus Christ with those of religion? I actually have a Coexist tract that I find useful. What do you think? This is the front of the tract:

And here is the back of the tract:

I would consider that to be a terrible tract because it fabricates an enemy. There is no universalist movement that identifies as "Coexist," and although you've insisted that there is repeatedly in this thread, you have failed to present even a shread of evidence that this particular movement exist.

I have the full text of the document distributed by this so called "Coexist" movement. Would you like to see it?:

"Coexist."

That's it! That's all it says! It doesn't go on to say "Co-exist, but also concede your beliefs to universalim." It doesn't say that. There is no footnote, no subtitle, no flyer distributed by the manufacturers of the sticker that makes the additional claim that you insist is being made. It simply says "coexist." That's the entirety of the message of the bumper sticker; a message that you claim to agree with! And I agree with it too! And I would say that all that agree with that message are in the right!

So then, who are you against? Are you against those those who agree with the message "coexist?" That can't be true, because you said that you agree with that message. Are you against universalism? That's a valid arguement to makem but what does it have to do with the bumper sticker? What evidence is there that either the creators or owners of those bumper stickers are universalists, and working with an agenda of universalism? If that was their goal, don't you think they failed by not bothering to go on to articulate their universalist beliefs?

You're creating an enemy where there is none. If your beef is with universalism, then state that clearly in your arguements. Don't demonize something completely unrelated for the sake of making your arguments against what you're truly against.

If you truly believe in the message "coexist," with that word alone being the entirety of the message, then I see no reason for you to be so bitter about a sticker that reads that message. Otherwise, it looks like you are arguing that "coexist" is a BAD thing.

tl;dr, there no universalist movement known as "Coexist," the "Coexist Foundation" has not demenstrated an agenda at promoting universalism, and there is no evidence that the manufactuers of the "Coexist" stickers are working with an agenda of universalism, and if they were, they failes simply because you forgot to include their universalist position within the message.

 

[airō]

I have never met an Evangelist who would endorse this movement, nor have I ever met a person who endorses this movement who also evangelizes.

2 questions for you since you didn't answer my previous one:

1) Do you or would you endorse this bumper sticker?

2) Do you share the Good News of Jesus Christ to those of religion?

 

[tulc]

I have never met an Evangelist who would endorse this movement, nor have I ever met a person who endorses this movement who also evangelizes.

2 questions for you since you didn't answer my previous one:

1) Do you or would you endorse this bumper sticker?

2) Do you share the Good News of Jesus Christ to those of religion?

Uhmmm yes and yes.
tulc(see? it's not hard to answer a question every now and then)

 

[airō]

Uhmmm yes and yes.
tulc(see? it's not hard to answer a question every now and then)

Do you believe Jesus is the only way to heaven and anyone who does not believe this will go to their default destination of hell? In other words, placing faith in Allah, or believing in the religious traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism will result in eternal judgment in hell?

p.s. I have answered numerous questions, perhaps not to your liking. But answered nevertheless.