 |
Music •
Biography •
Press Kit •
Randomness •
Lyrics Gigs • Photos • Writing • Fun Stuff • Links • Contact |
Thursday, April 22, 2004 A stimulating debate is good for the soul: Part I So I stumbled across something interesting this morning: an irenic, intelligent debate that's been raging through a series of blogs--four not including mine, I think, as I jump into the fray--on the validity of Christianity's exclusive claims to Truth. The entire discussion is rather long to wade through, but to summarize start at Ice and Silence and read the links and comments (important). Then read Steven's next post. The main part of my response, which was much longer than I thought it'd be (though I'll warn you that it'll make more sense if you actually do go and read the blogs I referenced): 1. For all of his comments on peace and love, Jesus had no tolerance for religiosity. He had plenty of harsh words--"you brood of vipers!" comes to mind--for the religious establishment, those who were supposed to bring the people to God but instead bound them in rules and law. 2. The "Christian faith" was not established per se during Jesus' lifetime: true. However, Jesus was making exclusive claims to his right as deity. The Jewish leadership considered him a heretic, claiming he was God (this was not a point of contention then as some would have it now--were it not for that, then why did they feel threatened by him? Why did they use the Romans to kill him?). Take statements like "before Abraham was born, I am" (John 8:58). Not "I was"--no, he used the covenant name that God had given to Moses. And the Jews who had been listening to his teachings with belief suddenly picked up stones to kill him. And according to what they believed, they'd have been justified if he were not God himself. It's also important to note that throughout that section he constantly claims to be from the Father--clearly understood to be God himself--and the only way of getting to him. 3. As I touched on in #1, Jesus would himself be maddened by phrases like "the rest are godless heathen who must be shunned and/or punished." His harsh words were ever only for the religious establishment, never for the "sinners" or "heathens" themselves. Christians would do well to remember that. Instead he welcomed the outcasts of society. Yet at the same time Jesus refused to leave people's lives unchanged--he frequently told people to "go and sin no more." Not an easy task. 4. Even without Christianity, wars are fought in the name of religion all the time. Muslims have had at least as many wars--Islamic fundamentalism has been the cause of much bloodshed--and I'm sure if we thought about the subject we'd find few religions exempt. Even if we took religion out of the picture there'd still be wars. I'm not making excuses for the Crusades, but I'm saying that blaming Christianity--or probably any religion, for that matter--for the majority of bloodshed in any era is faulty. It's in human nature, dark though it may seem. Wars are fought primarily for economic reasons, and those aren't likely to dissipate. 5. At the heart of almost every religion is an exclusive claim to Truth. Hindus have many gods, Christians have one who is accessible only through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, Muslims say Jesus was only a prophet and follow Mohammad's teachings but have only one God, Jews have one God and consider Jesus a heretic, Buddhists say forget the idea of God and would rather learn to let go the idea of desire. Each group will say the others are wrong, but to force any of them to hold steadfast to their beliefs yet give true validity to the others undermines the entirety of their own beliefs. We can all agree to love and respect each other regardless of belief, but it's futile to try to make each as valid as the other without destroying basic tenets of all those systems. I can love my Mormon friends--and do--but I can't agree that their beliefs are as valid as mine if I believe mine are the only true ones. And when a matter like hell--or separation from God, from the source of true joy--comes into the picture, I'd be a horrible friend if I merely allowed my friends to walk off a cliff without warning them that the bridge is out. Perhaps I'd be wrong in my assertion, but as a friend if I truly believed that the bridge was no longer there, I'd be bound to say something. Otherwise I obviously wouldn't love them very much, no matter what I claimed. Let the discussion continue.... ^ Top | 8:34 PM | | | 
|
