I have an honest question for Christians, please.

[Dhalgren]

How can a person claim to be a "Christian" and at the same time claim that they view all other religions as valid? This is a legitimate question - no flame bait or put downs on Christians intended nor sought. This came up in another thread and a poster said that he/she was a Christian, yet felt that all other religions were equally valid (paraphrase). How is this possible? Thanks for all honest, reasoned responses...

[donco6]

1. I'm confused on that one too.

I'm an ex-Fundie. We pretty much believed everyone else was going straight to hell. But that was because we believed in a literal interp of the Bible. Maybe if you don't, you can have a broader mind?

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. It's called being a progressive Christian. Are you familiar with the folk

tale about the blind men and the elephant? Many of us see the various religions as the blind men and God or the Universe or Enlightenment or whatever we call that thing that is larger than ourselves which binds all life together as the elephant.

You can visit my website for thoughts on this.

Pluralism and tolerance: http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=28

Progressive Christianity in general: http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=9&id=24&Itemid=31

[Dhalgren]

8. Thanks.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Baptist church and the "One Way" thing was very big. And it was this "One Way" business (along with a whole lot more) that led me to leave that faith. However, it still seems hard to accept the idea that God would sacrifice Himself as a means to salvation when other ways would and do work just as well. I'll check out your website. Thanks a lot...

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Any time. :^) I attended similar churches as a kid and still do now since

I married into a more conservative family, but my perspective has changed a lot as I have goteen older.

[SlipperySlope]

11. Perhaps the sacrifice truely was love then?

Assume that there are other paths that involved less pain and sacrifice on God's behalf.

However, assume that, for whatever reason, many people choose not to follow those paths.

Perhaps God, out of love, decided that making the ultimate sacrifice was worthwhile, if only it opened up a path that would save these people.

Creation has endowed humans with a wide variety of talents and interests. Perhaps it is only natural that there be as many paths to salvation as there are kinds of people? One path may not fit ever soul?

[Dhalgren]

17. My basic inclination is more of a "all roads lead to god" rather

than only the "One Way". And can see how someone who does more than just accept what is given and parroting of received "wisdom" could be a follower of Jesus' message and therefore call him/herself a "Christian". A person who has personalized and internalized the teachings of Plato would be called a "Platonist" without believing that Plato was a god. I think I see that labeling is the problem - many, radically different beliefs all call themselves "Christian". Hmmm....

[JerseygirlCT]

21. Well, this is an unorthodox way of looking at it

but my personal feeling is that God did not require a sacrifice for our salvation at all. I believe Christ's death was a demonstration by God of God's love for us. Rather saying: you silly people, what does it take to convince you? How about this? Look, death means nothing, and I'll show you that.

Just another way to think of it.

[Burning Water]

3. I have the same question.

And I consider myself a Christian.

But thinking someone is following the wrong religion is not at all the same thing as coercing him to follow yours. Your religion (or lack thereof) may (or may not be) wrong. But it is between you and God. I think others are allowed to proselytize. But not to harass, annoy, or use force to do so.

[sui generis]

4. I read the intro to Bullfinch's Mythology (1st Edition)

and was quite surprised to see the author note with deep gravity and scholarly authority that until christianity, mankind had bumbled about making up gods and stories to explain the unexplainable. I kept looking for the punch line.

Just found it of greatest irony, no matter what you believe, that someone could make that statement with a straight face.

[Cassandra]

6. Aside from the obvious point about making up God...

he also skipped over a few thousand years of Jewish history as well. Or maybe not.

[sui generis]

12. considering the source

probably addressed it in his dialogue on monotheism, along with other heathen attempts at monotheism such as the "Cult" of Akhenaten in Egypt.

Damn you semites!

[Dhalgren]

18. Yeah, I always considered Bullfinch to be so condescending as

to be almost unusable. Also, so many of Bullfinch's stories were third or fourth generation and so were just "off" enough for me to stop reading it...

[mitchtv]

5. To me (ex Catholic) the message of JC is

the Golden Rule. It is not necesary to believe in Him to follow the rule.
That's my take on your question , for what it's worth.

[Dhalgren]

13. Thanks. It's worth a lot.

I guess I have always had trouble getting my mind around the idea that you can be a "Christian" without believing that Jesus was God and that His sacrifice was the only means for slavation. I always respected the "Epicurean" quality of Jesus' message, it was all of the supernatural, mythological aspects that I had the biggest problem with.

[SlipperySlope]

7. There are many flavors of Christians

Fundamentalists tend to believe that every word of the Bible is literally true. This typically goes hand-in-hand with an uncompromising view that the bible is the perfectly inspired word of God. However not all Christians are fundamentalists.

If one is not a fundamentalist, then one has to accept a certain amount of leeway in the interpretation of the bible. One can accept that translation error have occurred, and one can accept that not all of the authors and editors were free of agendas.

When approached from this direction, reading the Bible becomes similar to looking through a dirty window. One tries to understand what Christ said and taught, even will accepting that the book itself has somewhat distorted his words.

Nonetheless, Christ's basic message remains clear. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Care of the downtrodden. Do not fall the folly that you are without sin. This is the path to heaven.

This reading of Christ's message is compatible with believing that other people in other time have found other ways to find salvation.

These Christians gave the gift of dying on the cross for your personal sins. However, it remains up to you whether you embrace this gift or not. Should you choose not to, perhaps salvation for you can come in another path.

I don't know if this can be extended to say that all other religions are valid. There may be false paths out there, particularly if they are paths that embrace violence and greed.

[supernova]

9. It comes from a place of humility

and introspection, ideally.

In a practical way, it simply means that I can say that being xtian makes the most sense for me, but I have no reason to fear or want to change someone else's view of the universe.

Most people who call themselves theologically liberal (whether they are xtain, jewish, muslim, pagan, etc.) share this view or some variant of it.

[Sammy Pepys]

14. I look at it this way...

...and mind you, I'm not exactly the epitome of a practicing Christian, so while I'll try to describe as best I can...it's not easy for me to just pull verse is exactly as they were written...so this is going to be in super layman's terms:

Somewhere in the Bible, it states in a couple of places that man is responsbile for no one elses salvation but his own. And whatever that path may be, ultimately it's up to the individual to discover it for themselves. If they think that path is through a means other than Christ, well, that's their choice. As we are responsible for own salvation, we are also responsible to choose the means thereof and to be accountable to God for it.

So, I can only worry about myself ultimately and make sure I do right by those spiritual terms I've chosen as my path to salvation. If others choose differently, that's their prerogative.

And as Samuel Johnson once said, when told of an editor who thanked God that he wouldn't have to deal with him anymore, Johnson remarked "I'm just happy he thanks God for anything..."

[The Straight Story]

15. Fairly simple to me

Take the American Indians for example. They were more god fearing than the jews, and such was mentioned in the OT actually about how the heathens respected god more at times than the jews did.

God merely chose a more direct method to interact with one group than others. He (it, she, whatever) was evident to those who sought him out - they just saw him in different ways.

I respect that others view god in different ways, I happen to think my way is correct (which is why I believe the way I do of course, the same can be said of anyone holding a belief) but I remain open to learn from others (as an example, I studied tibetan buddhism and it helped me to learn more deeply and apply that learning to better understanding what was going on in the scriptures).

That does not mean I respect all faiths equally of course :) If it were worship of some rock where you sacrifice babies and feed em to monkeys I would probably have some major issues with it ;)

I think the KEY difference in that christians believe that in order for their sin to be purged it took the sacrifice of someone perfect, ie christ. God made satan, satan sinned and was thrown out, god makes man, satan tempts man and thinks he has won because now man must suffer the same fate he did. God's legal loophole is that he never said who had to be punished and instead of us suffering death he became human and did it for us (hence the bruising of the head of the serpent in genesis - satan's ego god smacked down).

God, the first lawyer :)

[Lerkfish]

16. This is the analogy i use...

a group of explorers are trying to find the top of a mountain.
one starts up the cliff face and gets back into a corner, and cannot proceed.
one starts up a gentle slope and gets sidetracked in a meandering trail.
one goes around to the back of the mountain, hoping to find an easier path.
and so on....

at the end of the day, none of the climbers make it right to the summit.

they all took different paths. But they all had the same objective.
Each was convinced their path was the best course. Each of them was right, because each path was the one THEY chose, so for them, it was the right course.
And yet, each of them fell somewhat short.

Does that make them all failures? Does that mean that the one who went the furthest was more correct?

What is important is that they all had the same or similar objective. To fault a fellow climber distracts one from one's own progress.
Its ok to assist someone who calls for help, but it is wrong to try to knock them off the mountain.

I believe as a christian, I have the best path. But BECAUSE I'm a christian, I know that Christ taught me to understand that the paths of others are between them and God. Anyone is welcome to my path, but I will not hinder the path of another.

All paths seek a spirtual enlightenment, or communion with the deity, to understand man's role and purpose in creation or the universe.
In that way, they are all honorable paths.

Now, obviously, you can have evil tour guides on any given path, who misdirect the pilgrims from their objective by taking them off the path. That does not mean the path itself or the objective are evil.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. God is too big to be understood by any human mental construct

Therefore, no human religion can get at the whole truth.

Each culture creates its own metaphors for the Infinite and the Source of All out of its own experiences, yet when you look at their core beliefs, there are many similarities.

Most of the Biblical passages in which Jesus is supposed to have said that he is the only way to God are in the Gospel of John, which was written as long as two hundred years after the events they are supposed to describe. Most modern scholars believe that John is full of Greek-influenced philosophical interpretation, unlike the other gospels, which are more straightforward narratives. (Fundies, naturally, would scream "heresy," and this knowledge has not filtered down to the average churchgoer in most denominations.)

Paul's letter to the Romans--Paul's letters are some of the earliest New Testament writings--states that righteous pagans are saved by the law that is inscribed in their hearts. (Romans 2:12-16). Not surprisingly, most fundamentalists seem not to have heard of this passage and are surprised when one points it out.)

[JerseygirlCT]

20. I'm one of those

Although I might not put it in exactly those terms.

I think God is one. I think different people find different ways to reach or try to reach, the divine. I think different people were provided with different teachers throughout the ages.

I also think all religion carries the burden of human founders and practitioners. That is, all religion is somewhat man-made, and therefore flawed.

So if Christianity works for me, it's ok if seeing the divine in terms of paganism works for you. I believe we seek the same, one, divine.

Christ's teachings are invaluable, I think. But they are not limited soley to Christ. Many of the same lessons are found in other religious traditions. It all boils down to love God and love one another.

Beyond that, to borrow from Rabbi Hillel, the rest is commentary.