Many religions (but mine is right)

Coyotero · Post by **Coyotero** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:25 pm

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?

Jrosemary · Post by **Jrosemary** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:27 pm

Coyotero wrote: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.

I don't think belonging to a monotheist faith--by which I presume you mean the three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam--requires an exclusivist stance; that is, the stance which says "my religion is right and everyone else's is wrong."

Judaism is rarely exclusivist--there may be a few ultra, ultra Orthodox or, um, ultra, ultra Chasidic Jews who fall under that definition, but it's not the norm. Judaism is much more often either inclusivistic or pluralistic.

Inclusivism is sort of middle of the road--it means that a religion acknowledges that you can be right before God without converting to that religion. Judaism is not a missionary religion; it has long taught that gentiles who follow a basic moral code (known as the Noahide laws) are right in the eyes of God--end of subject. Jews help heal the world through Torah; gentiles help heal the world through the Noahide laws.

Pluralistic means that a religious person accepts people of other religions on their own terms. So, for example, Jews who say that Jews interact with God and santicfy the world through Torah while Christians find salvation through Jesus would be pluralists. (So if we're pluralists, we drop the whole Noahide idea and accept the person of another faith's definition of how that person interacts with the divine.)

In general, pluralists look for moral agreement rather than theological agreement. Because Judaism has long held that deed outweighs creed, pluralism is an easy fit for Judaism. That doesn't mean all Jews are pluralists, but it's quite common.

Pluralism is harder for Christianity, because Christianity is a missionary religion that has long held Jesus as the only way. Nonetheless, there are many brilliant pluralist theologians within Christianity. (Hans Kung comes to mind.)

Inclusivism is an easier call for Christianity: it's the view held by Christian thinkers like C. S. Lewis and, in fact, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and common in many mainline Protestant denominations. A Christian inclusivist would say that people are saved only by Jesus--but you don't necessarily have to acknowledge or believe in Jesus in order to be saved by him.

(To be 'saved' is, of course, a Christian idea--Judaism doesn't have the same concept of individual salvation.)

There are, of course, many Christian exclusivists: that's the idea that if you have not accepted Jesus as your lord and savior you are damned.

I regret to say that I am not very knowledgable about Islam (a deficiency I hope to correct), but the Muslims I've known personally seem fit into the inclusivist, middle-of-the-road category. Perhaps someone who knows more about Islam will be able to give us more information.

Coyotero · Post by **Coyotero** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:55 pm

Thank you!

Yes, I was speaking of the Abrahamic religions, and I did not mean to over-generalize.

I was unaware that Jews had such a universalist worldview, your post has been very enlightening.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:10 pm

What are the Noahide laws?

Jrosemary · Post by **Jrosemary** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:56 pm

Rabbinic Judaism drew the Noahide laws primarily from accounts of Noah--according to the Talmud, these are the laws that God gave Noah and his children. (Noah, remember, came before Abraham, the first Jew. Therefore Noah represents all humanity.)

Here are the seven Noahide laws:

1. Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.

2. Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)

3. Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.

4. Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions.

5. Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.

6. Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4) [Sometimes this is extended to a general prohibition on cruelty to animals.]

7. Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

Some of these, as you can see, are similar or identical to the laws found in the ten commandments. (The ten commandments are technically for Jews, not for everyone, excepting the commandments that are also found in the Noahide laws. Which does make sense--why should gentiles have to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy?)

Here are some problems I find with the Noahide laws:

1. The prohibition on idolatry may be problematic. This works if we're dealing with Christianity or Islam, since Christians and Muslims worship the same God we do. Does it work if we're dealing with Hinduism or Wicca? I'd say yes--I'd say that worshipping Vishnu or Isis is not a form of idolatry because they're simply worshipping other aspects of God.

2. One of the sexual prohibitions is against homosexual intercourse between men. This same prohibition is in the Torah and applies to Jews, but it's a controversial prohibition in Judaism. Three out of the four major branches of Judaism now allow gay marriage, so it seems kind of silly to have a prohibition against homosexuality for gentiles.

3. The Noahide laws, to me, aren't adequate to deal with people of other faiths. A Christian does not perceive herself to be right with God because she follows the Noahide laws, but because she has been saved through Jesus. A Hindu doesn't perceive himself to be right with God because he follows the Noahide laws, but because he has drawn closer to his Ishta Devata. So I suppose I'm saying that the Noahide laws are too inclusivist for me and not pluralist enough.

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:10 pm

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.)

Coyotero · Post by **Coyotero** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:20 pm

For what it's worth, cnorman, I like your posts as well, they've just never been directed at my specific questions before (as far as I know).

BirdofPrey · Post by **BirdofPrey** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:33 pm

Many religions

if they contradict, you can't hold them all as true. if the one you hold says it's the only religion that's right, you have no choice but say, the others are wrong.

(but mine is right)

Now I wonder, do you expect anyone having a religion he sees to be wrong ?

But this: "How and why can you be certain that your belief is right ?" - is a great question. I'd say you can't be certain of anything. If someone else thinks differently, I beg to let me know !

Also, I'd like to say that if from among the 4400 or so, one would stick out in terms of certainty, we'd probably have a "winner". It would be that simple. Instead, quite some major religions emphasize FAITH ! If any of these are valid, then I'd say that obscurity and uncertainty is present for a reason and is endorsed. Anyone agrees ? I have a topic around this idea on which I stumble recurrently here: Endorsed obscurity and uncertainty ? but I fail to receive feedback.

Why is this under non-christian religions and philosophies ? Why are we discussing about abrahamic faiths under a category that excludes it partially ?

BirdofPrey · Post by **BirdofPrey** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:58 pm

Thanks for putting this together, Jrosemary.

Truth is exclusivistic, 2x2 = 4 no matter how unfair that might seem to those who would like it to be 5 as well. So, I'm just aiming at accuracy, and the Sola Scriptura approach looks as a rather sane way in aiming for this accuracy. If a religion doesn't talk about another way, it doesn't mean there isn't any, unless it says there isn't, and the Bible does:
Acts 4:12

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Despite this, I recognize that there must be a way to include at least those who lived before Jesus was born, like Abraham - who is regarded as just before God through his faith in God. Now, since Jesus is God, I'd say we're talking about the same thing. Trusting that God will save you and trusting that God already provided a way, Jesus, the means of that saving doesn't look too different to me.

But I don't see how any other ways of inclusion would work. Is there anything else ? And this is where I arrive at my question, would you say that pluralism or inclusivism is usually going against what I called accuracy above or rather... self-consistency sometimes ? I wonder if you perceive a potential trend in the air, that tries to find illegal ways to reconcile contradictions between religions. When I talk about illegality, I am talking about the fact that the religion itself is exclusivist, no matter which (if there's any other except the Christian faith - is there ? ), and thus attempts to make it compatible harm it's integrity.

Sorry if I'm not too elaborate, I realize this is a messy post.

Jrosemary · Post by **Jrosemary** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 2:36 pm

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

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.

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. 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.)

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; 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.

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.)

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. 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.

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.