Arrogancy

[SoulTYPE]

than Christian beliefs are not the truth to said Pagan and vice versa and therefore cannot be the only truth.

Thankyou dear fro assisting my theory!

 

[Circle_One]

Thankyou dear fro assisting my theory!

Quite welcome Soul.

 

[hoomer]

truth is subjective.........personally I think there are MANY truths...in the context of religion.....no 1 way has them alll....

I beleive objective truth is experiental...and that of God..is the ony rea truth....this truth cannot be expressed fuly however...thus we have "religionS" all attempting to express this truth...much like water flowing thrugh a pipe (I often think of mysef as a cosmic pipe fitter).....the water being truth and the pipe being reigion....thus one can know God...one can experience God...but one cannot fuly expres God

"those who know do not speak, those that speak do not know"--lao tzu

 

[BUDDY]

Well I have read all the post's on this thread and can't help but put in my opinion. Arrogancy is a word to describe someone's OPINION on how someone else presents themselves. Since it is opinion, you can not state as fact that someone is or is not arrogant (fact meaning a univeral truth). You can only give your personal thoughts on the matter.

As to arrogancy of religious beliefs. In my opinion there are those who speak as though having all truth, and yet are open to alternate ideas. I would consider them to be perhaps mistaken, but not necessarily arrogant. I think that someone who is arrogant, would be someone who when confronted with another idea, dismisses it as non-sense and the one giving the idea as arrogant. Do you know where I find this most often? Among Atheist's.

I think there is only one correct interpretation of Biblical principles, and it is man's purpose to try his best to understand them through study, and apply them accordingly. Usually if there is a misunderstanding on matters of religion, a concensus can be reached if people have an open mind and honest heart.

 

[SoulTYPE]

Arrogancy is a word to describe someone's OPINION on how someone else presents themselves.

That sounds more like judgment to me.

 

[No*s]

That sounds more like judgment to me.

I think he means that "arrogancy" (I would say "arrogance" lol) is a word used to describe the actions of an individual, but isn't as accurate concerning beliefs. I don't think I'd agree with that, but I also don't really know if that's what was intended. The post wasn't exactly clear...

 

[Pilgrim of this Reality]

The problem with religion is that no one completely knows if they are right. I for instance believe the teachings of the NT . To me it is the Truth but to another its nonsense. We really cant know who is true until we face the other side of this life. It is one thing to talk to some one about your beliefs. Its completely another to arrogantly announce they what you believe is right and everyone else is wrong. That is not your place to say. It is the place of whichever supreme being that does exist (for me God, Jehovah) to say who is right or wrong.

 

[SoulTYPE]

The problem with religion is that no one completely knows if they are right.

But Pilgrim, why would Christians believe their"way" is right, and truthful, if they didn't KNOW they were right..

Not that I agree that they are right.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Is tolerance then seen as acquiesence?

I honestly see "other" paths as deeply flawed and wrong. But I do NOT feel the need to flame, harrass or cajole those who believe differently. I respect their beliefs and would hope that they would respect mine as well. If this makes anyone label me as "arrogant" then so be it. My beliefs are not contingent on other's acceptance.

 

[SoulTYPE]

"But I do NOT feel the need to flame, harrass or cajole those who believe differently. I respect their beliefs and would hope that they would respect mine as well."

Nor do I. I think the world would be a more peaceful place if we just accept who people are, what they are and what they believe.

Flaming only creates more tension.

Flaming LOL!

 

[Scuba Pete]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to SoulTYPE01 again.

 

[SoulTYPE]

**** message lol, I didn't know I had said anything worth fruballing..

 

[Master Vigil]

No's, I am not an exclusivist. I respect peoples opinions and if they think they are right and everyone else is wrong, thats fine as long as they are good people. I don't agree with everyone, nobody agrees with everyone, but I also realize that I may be wrong, and definitely don't believe I am right about everything (how is that arrogant?). The reason I have respect for the Roman Catholic faith now is that they they recognize the truth in all religions now. Alteast the pope says they should. Sure they still may think they are right, but they recognize that all others are wonderful faiths as well. I have much more respect for pagan religions because they never say they are the only ones that are right. That is very humble. And I find even more humbleness in taoism and zen buddhism. Especially in their "don't know" attitude. A true taoist when posed with the question "whos religion is right?" They would simply answer, "I don't know." Because in truth, we don't know. I have always been taught to be humble, especially in my martial arts background. If I go around telling everyone how good I am, I will either lose all of my respect from people, or get beat up because there is always someone better. And that is the point. There is always someone better. Granted, I am a good striking fighter, but I can't grapple worth crap. So if I tried to grapple someone, I'd get beat. I feel the same about religions, while one religion is good at something, none are good at everything and there is always one out there better at something. And it is worse when people claim the other is going to hell because of the differences. I feel when people don't give any credit to others, or don't accept their finite fallibility, that arrogance occurs. I am finite, imperfect, I will fail, I will be wrong, and I accept that. It reminds of a passage from the tao te ching talking about how the ocean makes a good leader.

Why is the ocean the king of all streams? Because it lies lower than they.

That is humbleness, but as some like to believe they are above everything else. That is arrogance.

 

[No*s]

This is all well and good, but if you do believe we don't know, then there is no need to cast aspersions on those who do not try to be inclusive in their religious beliefs. When you hold up a belief, and you say, "This is right, and people who disagree are wrong or in the wrong," this is exclusivism. It is excluding a belief. It applies even when championing inclusivism, and when one argues vehemently against exclusivism, or calls its proponents arrogant, one is being exclusive by the very definition of the word.

More directly, I don't think it appropriate to point the finger and say "You are arrogant, because you don't agree with my inclusivism! It is so arrogant to exclude people or condemn another belief system" and then proclaim your humility. It is an oxymoron to accuse another of arrogance simply to exalt the humility of one's own view and demeanor by extension.

 

[Master Vigil]

No's, you are making me sad with your posts. You are completely misunderstanding me. I am not condemning exclusivism. I am not condemning anything. I accept all ideas, but I respect some more than others. But I also accept the fact that I may and probably am wrong.

 

[No*s]

No's, you are making me sad with your posts. You are completely misunderstanding me. I am not condemning exclusivism. I am not condemning anything. I accept all ideas, but I respect some more than others. But I also accept the fact that I may and probably am wrong.

I apologize for making you sad. That is not my intent. I was first expressing offense at the idea (and spirit) of the thread. When the following argument was made (and with a subsequent appeal to humility), it took it up another notch.

I think it is time to clear the air and plainly state what I perceive:

------

Here I explain how I perceived your argument about the arrogance of exclusivism and its proponents. I hope you understand where the offense lies.

The following assertions have been made:

1). Religious exclucivism is an arrogant belief (fair enough at that point)
2). People who hold it are just as arrogant as the belief's founder, because they hold an arrogant belief.

We have the major premise and the minor premise. When you made those assertions, you said my whole belief system was arrogant and that we were arrogant by extension. I think you can see now how I've interpreted that as pointing fingers .

The above syllogism seems to be casting aspersions on other people, and it is the argument in the thread. When this point of view is expressed combined with a self-proclimation of humility and universal acceptance, those of us to whom it was directed have a right to cry foul.

I realize that that may not have been your intention, but now you can see how I read what I read. Most criciticisms of religious exclucivity's arrogance actually come off this way when I read them, and I know a lot of people who see the same thing.

If I misunderstood your premises, I apologize, but that is what I read, and I am open to correction.

-----

The thread was started to express that view, but it didn't do so with the same tenor (it was more calm).

We all agree that the exclusivism in question is religious (scientific exclucivism of, say, literalist creationism is something I think almost everyone on this thread could agree to). So, the argument goes as follows.

1). Exclusivist beliefs are arrogant, and they should not be wrong (i.e. wrong).
2). We should be inclusive and accept most, if not all, beliefs and not exclude a system.

The above two premises contradict one another, and they have no outside force to resolve it (like God inspired it, and God is above contradiction).

This contrast is further maintained, because exclucivism isn't a belief unto itself. It is a result of several other beliefs. When the above is asserted, it doesn't condemn a single belief, but entire religious systems. It, therefore, does not accept all belief systems but rejects them. Christian exclucivism is built on the nature of the Incarnation, the Church, divine revelation, and several other beliefs. Islam's is based on their view of divine revelation, human life (I can't call it salvation...the term is inaccurate), and likely others.

When inclusivism is argued, while stating we should simply accept all belief systems, it requires us to reject, not just individual beliefs, but entire religions. Absolute inclucivism makes no sense from that perspective.

My argument on this thread is that militant inclusivism contradicts its own position. The thread starter, like yourself, admits to potential error, but inclusive militance marches against exclusivism and doesn't address other errors anywhere near as frequently. I think the reason for this is that it would inevitably fall into the same contradiction, but it isn't perceived as readily when it opposes exclusivism.

So, then, you might understand now how I feel when an inclusivist judges my beliefs, he is practicing a convenient double standard. I have no problem with someone telling me I'm wrong. I just expect them to submit to their own beliefs, and this isn't the case with inclusivism.

My appeal in this thread is both to internal consistency and tolerance. As i've explained, inclusivism is a cause for militancy and intolerance just as much as exclusivism. People have been killed for it too. What we need to do is be consistent with our own beliefs and tolerant in society, that is, lesson our militancy. None of us are immune to this problem, so we all have to work on it.

The tension in the call for inclusivism can, and it will, cause fanaticism as readily as the Christian or Muslim who believes that their beliefs are so obvious the government should be helping people see the obvious (and yes, I have heard that very statement). We can never have a peaceful society if we go to either extreme.

Tolerance, not exclusivism not inclusivism, is the key to peaceful relations in religion. We can all treat each other with respect, but we don't have to agree. We don't even have to say there is a possibility the other guy is right. We can even tell what we think respectfully without casting aspersions on others.

I hope I have cleared things up now

 

[SoulTYPE]

Tolerance, not exclusivism not inclusivism, is the key to peaceful relations in religion. We can all treat each other with respect, but we don't have to agree. We don't even have to say there is a possibility the other guy is right. We can even tell what we think respectfully without casting aspersions on others.

I hope I have cleared things up now

WELL SAID!

 

[Master Vigil]

You have no's. And I am severely sorry for offending you. I had no intention whatsoever to do that. I agree with what you have said. I agree that tolerance is the issue. I suppose that I am not an inclusivist either by your definition. Because I accept everything as true. I suppose I accept everything as false as well, like my analogy with the different styles of fighting. There is always something better, etc... I suppose I don't mean that a religion is arrogant in and of itself, nor are its followers. I suppose the arrogance only falls on those who do not see falt in thier own ways, or truth in anothers. Whether they are christian, pagan, taoist, bank teller, accountant, etc... This is just my opinion, but, I have more respect for faiths that are humble, because it seems their followers are as such. I wonder if tolerance is ever possible if every faith was exclusivist? What if every faith was inclusivist? Would their be tolerance then? I dunno, I guess thats all I can say. I don't know.

 

[No*s]

OK, I'm glad it's cleared up then .

EDIT:

I do believe exclusivist religions can be tolerant in society. As much tension as there is in the U.S., for instance, there are rarely beatings, murders, or the like. We have vitriole, but as long as the law keeps a cap on it, it will continue.

Ironically, it was inclusivism that caused the persecution of Early Christians and Jews in Rome to a degree. By not recognizing the official religion (which was extremely inclusive), they were banned traitors and killed.

I suspect the secret is to keep government out of religion to make sure that nobody uses its power to coerce others into their POV .

 

[keevelish]

I dunno I just thinkits arrogant to assume that I have the truth and no one else does....I think there are many truths and many ways to approach God

I claim that Christ is the only way to God because I have faith in what the Bible says. As for the validity of other religions- they all have contradictory teachings and methods of getting to God- how can they ALL be correct?

As for the relativistic view- what makes anyone think that God says it's ok to do whatever you want and you'll still go to heaven? That's like a parent allowing his kid to be a total brat and still giving him candy- pretty pathetic, especially if you consider God to be sovereign.