Many religions (but mine is right)

[Coyotero]

Some religions (particularly the monotheistic ones) seem to posit that in a world of thousands of religions (about 4,400 if I remember correctly) theirs is right and everyone else is dead wrong.

Christians will tell you that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. Muslims will tell you the same. Heck, even different sects of the same religion will say that each other are wrong (Such as Lutherans and Catholics... Same God, same Jesus, but both groups believe the other to be damned.)

So my topic is this: How and why can you be so certain that your particular belief is correct, and everyone else is wrong?

[JoeyKnothead]

Thanks, Rosemary. I've been trying to explain this stuff for almost two years, and here you come along and do it more clearly and succinctly than I ever could.

(See, everybody? The stuff I've been posting hasn't just been my weird idiosyncratic cnorman version of Judaism. This is what it IS.)

I never doubted you for a minute. To have someone verify your theology is only further proof, of which I didn't need, but do 'preciate.

[BirdofPrey]

Thank you for posting !

I'm sorry, Bird of Prey, but I'm not certain what you're asking.

As near as I can figure, you're positing an exclusivist form of Christianity which is certainly not uncommon

I'm not sure my self. The whole post started as a reaction to what I read. While at it, I was forced into some thinking, and than I had to rewrite most of it. I'm not an exclusivist, but I had a tendency. I'm rather someone who tries to stick to the facts. But it's tricky.

--but which is also far from the only form of Christianity. As I mentioned above, the Roman Catholic Church

this Church isn't like me for example, as their habits aren't biblical. They are going against their very foundation. I have to object. This seems illogical. And exactly this is what I want to underline. I'm not talking from a Christian perspective. I'm agnostic.. or undecided.. I'm talking data integrity or something. I'm talking either you believe what the Bible says, or you don't. Otherwise... you've got a serious problem

and most mainline Protestants (including the late C.S. Lewis) take an inclusivist stance. This inclusivist stance maintains the traditional Christian teaching that no on can find salvation except through Jesus, but denies that individuals must explicitly acknowledge or believe in Jesus to obtain salvation through him.

I'm not savy enough to comment on this. I am yet to understand what believing in Jesus and acknowledging means. From what I figure so far, it's not just saying I acknowledge, or believe.

There are also genuine Christian pluralists--Christians who do not believe that, in order to be right with God, everyone must find salvation in Jesus, but rather accept that people of other religions interact with the Divine on different terms and in different ways than do Christians. Hans Kung and Roger Haight are two well-known Christian pluralists.

This at least at first sight goes against the "I am the way" principle. On the other hand, who is this I ? Jesus ? Life ? Truth ? So is life the way now ? I hate that seemingly everything can be justified, and no one can be sure of something. I absolutely detest this ground for uncertainty.

I understand that pluralism presents certain problems to Christianity which do not exist in Judaism. Christianity is a credal religion--Judaism is not. Let me explain what I mean:

There are three ways to be religious: by doing, by belonging, and by believing.

I like to see things consolidated like this. I like this post

In Judaism, the emphasis is on belonging (being a member of the people Israel, by birth or conversion) and doing (working to heal the world, following halacha--that is, Jewish law--etc.) There is little emphasis on beliefs in Judaism. There are many Jewish teachings, of course, but they do not serve as a litmus test to determine whether or not someone is Jewish. A Jewish atheist is as much a Jew as the most devout Jewish theist.

Christianity is quite different--what you believe is paramount. Doing and Belonging have their place, but no one can deny the importance of belief. So in Christianity, there is a heavy emphasis on believing that doesn't exist in Judaism. You can arguably say that if a person does not believe certain things, that person is not Christian. (This, again, is a situation that doesn't exist in Judaism.)

What happened to the Pharisees ?

One of the traditional Christian beliefs is that salvation comes through Jesus and Jesus alone. (It's worth noting that this whole notion of 'salvation' is a Christian notion;

noted, understood the first time.

Judaism doesn't understand salvation the same way and is, moreover, far more concerend with 'sanctification.') Again, this traditional Christian belief presents a challenge to Christian pluralists, but it's a challenge many meet brilliantly, often delving deeply into the New Testament to do so.

Something concrete here, if you'd be so kind? By the way, you said that you weren't sure what I'm asking. As always, I'd say, follow the question marks ! This concept of inclusivism awoke my curiosity.

Since Judaism has always held that deed outweighs creed--and has, moreover, always accepted that a gentile does not need to be Jewish in order to be right with God--there is no inherent contradiction in being a Jew and being a pluralist. (Nonetheless, as I mentioned above, many Jews are inclusivist rather than pluralist. Exclusivism is extremely rare.)

Intriguing. Would I find anyone to disagree ?

Meanwhile, regardless of what religion a person belongs to, pluralism requires a certain theological humility. It requires the ability to say that we are finite beings and that the teachings of our individual religions do not say everything there is to be said about God--much less that we, as individuals, know everything there is to be known about God.

Well said.

We can leave ourselves open to the possibility that other religions are legitimate outreaches of God to humanity and that they are God-intended and God-inspired. In fact, we often begin with that premise.

Now I agree that there is a possiblity. Treating it as a certainty though... doesn't look right from where I'm standing.

That's why pluralists look for moral agreement rather than theological agreement. If we're all morally on the same page--if we all strive to heal this broken world and to respect the dignity of every human being--we don't need to agree with each other theologically or make theological judgments. We'd rather talk, listen and learn than pass judgment on the truth or falsehood of each aspect of other faiths.

Wonder how biblical this is...

[Jrosemary]

Hey BirdofPrey. I'll answer to the best of my abilities.

. . . this [Roman Catholic] Church isn't like me for example, as their habits aren't biblical. They are going against their very foundation. I have to object. This seems illogical. And exactly this is what I want to underline. I'm not talking from a Christian perspective. I'm agnostic.. or undecided.. I'm talking data integrity or something. I'm talking either you believe what the Bible says, or you don't. Otherwise... you've got a serious problem

I'm not qualified to take part in a Christian centered debate about Ecclesiastical Tradition vs. Sola Scriptura. As my definition of Christian, I'll use one of the Merriam-Webster offerings: "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." That would certainly include the three main branches of Christianity: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism.

Regarding your contention that you either believe what the Bible says, or you don't--I'm not certain what to make of it. You'll have to be more clear. As a general rule, Jews read the Hebrew Bible differently than Christians; Catholics often read the Bible differently than Protestants and so forth. How we approach the text, and the questions we ask, tend to rely greatly on where we start from.

To get an idea of how Jews read Scripture, you may want to read the thread entitled "Torah, human judgment and Jewish exegisis." It's a recent thread started by CNorman.

What happened to the Pharisees ?

The Pharisees were the forefathers of rabbinic Judaism--it's the movement that gave birth to rabbinic Judaism, which is largely the Judaism we have today; although certain branches of Judaism are arguably post-rabbinic in the classic sense of the term.

The Pharisees were the champions of accepting not only the Torah as Scripture (the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) but also the Prophets and the Writings (which, combined with the Torah, comprises the Tanakh, which roughly corresponds to the Christian Old Testament.) The Pharisees also championed the Oral Law, which was eventually collected in the Talmud. The Talmud is brimming with commentaries on the Torah, arguments between rabbis about the Torah, stories about the Torah, commentaries and arguments about Jewish law, etc.

The Pharisees are largely responsible for the whole concept of a synagogue--that is, a building devoted to worship, prayer and study apart from the Temple and the Temple sacrifice system.

The Pharisaic period ended when Rome destroyed our Temple--but they live on through rabbinic Judaism. There is still a deal of controversy regarding just how close the Pharisees are to the rabbis who followed them and what differences separate them; but that rabbinic Judaism owes the Pharisees an enormous debt is clear.

Something concrete here, if you'd be so kind?

Pick up a book called: The Myth of Religious Superiority: A Multifaith Exploration. Paul F. Knitter is the editor and it includes essays about pluralism by respected scholars from most major religions. For a pluralistic view of Christianity in particular, pick up anything by: Hans Kung, Roger Haight, Paul F. Knitter or John Hick (who may be the most radical) among others.

It would be difficult for me, as a non-Christian, to delve any further into the issue of Christian pluralism than the brief overview I gave in a post above. I highly recommend the book I just mentioned, however.

Intriguing. Would I find anyone to disagree ?

No one so far, lol. We'll have to wait and see.