@prothero,
prothero;156495 wrote:My view is ultimately one of religious pluralism (embracing the diversity of religious experience and expression) as opposed to mere tolerance of other faiths. I take delight in the various religious offerings, the diversity of views and have respect for the participants in the world's great religious traditions. I object to religious exclusionary teachings (my religion is true yours is false, adherents to my faith are going to heaven those of yours to hell, etc.). I regard such notions of the exclusive truth of one faith as opposed to another to be hubris and to inherently lack the loving respect due those with alternative experiences of divine reality. All the world's great religious traditions embrace love and compassion as the basis of ethics. Almost by definition this makes love and mutual respect primary over differences of doctrine, creed or dogma (love over law). The "we are all children of god, we are all brothers and sisters, our common humanity, etc) approach to faith. In this sense then I guess I would claim my vision is "larger, more inclusive, a bigger tent" than the vision that divine reality is captured, or the truth about god is contained, in one faith as opposed to other faiths "god is too big for one religion".
If the claim is that your particular religion represents your path to the truth of the divine reality and your understanding of gods nature and gods action in the world, I do not see how that could possibly be a problem. If the overriding principle of your faith is loving respect for god and for your fellow humans (love over law) and appreciation for creation we have much common ground. No faith gets in trouble for feeding the hungry, sheltering the poor, healing the sick or comforting the afflicted. It is exclusive claims to truth, god and salvation that generates conflict between faiths.
So if love and respect are the primary features of your faith, there is no difference between us that cannot be discussed in the manner of polite exchange and reasoned conversation.
I totally agree. God is far too big to be narrowed down to one specific religion or interpretation. God is an infinite corridor in a finite direction. Depending on your level of spiritual maturity, where you are born, your upbringing, when you were born, and your general personality type, each persons individual position along that corridor will be different.
I have never bought the argument that since all these religions claim to have this or that or be, the way, that this somehow falsifies them all. On the contrary I would expect nothing more than there to be differences. Why? Because as I've been saying God is far too big to be narrowed down to this or that. I am a Christian because that is where God spoke to me, but who am I to claim that God has not spoken to individuals of other faiths? God, if He exists, IMO, is just; and it seems off, to me, to think that God would judge someone unjustly. We are not dealing with something that can be seen with the eyes or measured with a ruler, so it seems quite likely to me that each individuals conception of such a thing is going to pass through the prism of the culture in which they come. This is not a bad or good thing, merely a fact.
One thing I will say is there is a big difference between, Christianity, the "franchise" and Christianity as espoused by Jesus and the saints and as lived by many Christians. While I don't agree with it, I can understand why a religion would want to make an exclusivity claim, and this has caused tons of problems through the centuries. At the same time though, I can read between the lines of the words preached in the bible and understand that the last thing I ought to be doing is claiming I've found the way while everyone else is doomed. Afterall, as Paul says, "it's not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,."
