1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

inclusive vs. exclusive

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Iti oj, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. Iti oj

    Iti oj guru of the new rf Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,572
    Religion:
    RF cult leader & taosit black magician
    Ok so for sake of debate let's assume god and/or gods are true snd that a religion, some religions or all religions are true. Debate rules if you arguing for a one true religion do so with out scripture. Ill except scripture for an inclusive argument.

    This is to prevent a my good my book vs. Your god and book.
    please respect this i want an enjoyable thread with out bickering and flaming.
     
    SageTree likes this.
  2. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita

    Messages:
    5,133
    I am definately an inclusivist. Your life is judged by the quality of your heart and not your position on philosophical and religious questions. An atheist with a good heart is better than a believer with a shallow heart and petty hatreds.

    There are a flock of problems with any exclusivist position I've ever seen.
     
  3. Twig pentagram

    Twig pentagram High Priest

    Messages:
    1,832
    I'm thinking inclusive.
     
  4. Thorbjorn

    Thorbjorn Vikingr vald eda matnadr!!! Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    12,150
    Religion:
    Ásatrú
    Inclusive.

    Bhagavad Gita 4.11. "O Partha! Whosoever worship Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path."
     
  5. Shuddhasattva

    Shuddhasattva New Member

    Messages:
    2,543
    Here's how I see it:

    The eternal truth is currently (and has been) beyond human expression. At various times and places, those who have gained some acquaintance with the Truth attempt to convey it to others. The results are cults (in the academic sense) which sometimes expand into sufficient popularity (through a variety of means - which often change the original message greatly) to establish themselves as religions.

    By nature, any message, any system, must contain some truth. Even random words - even random letters, by their nature, contain some truth-value; some meaning. Lies are disarranged truths; there is no lie without first having the real which is deformed out of accurate representation.

    So, all religions contain some truth, the question is degrees and usefulness. Some religions are much, much, much truer, and much more useful, than others. Usefulness is both objective and subjective - leaning towards subjective, and truth is likewise, leaning towards objective.

    Some truths are, by their nature, beyond objective referents, they rely on resonance with the perceiver. Utility is much more highly subjective. What's useful to me may not be useful to you.
     
  6. Iti oj

    Iti oj guru of the new rf Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,572
    Religion:
    RF cult leader & taosit black magician
    Still it work so short post is, any one disagree and see it as exclusive?
     
  7. The Sum of Awe

    The Sum of Awe Realitarian

    Messages:
    13,901
    Religion:
    Stoicism
    I think there's one reality, and only one religion (a theory of everything) can be right, but philosophical patterns in which rides on to a better life is entirely inclusive.

    So I'm exclusive to other gods but inclusive to other philosophies if that makes sense.
     
  8. Iti oj

    Iti oj guru of the new rf Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,572
    Religion:
    RF cult leader & taosit black magician
    their is only one god to worship but many ways to worship him/her/it/me?
     
  9. The Sum of Awe

    The Sum of Awe Realitarian

    Messages:
    13,901
    Religion:
    Stoicism
    That depends on which god is real, not sure if my theology is the right or not, but if the Christian's were real then it probably wouldn't be.
     
  10. Iti oj

    Iti oj guru of the new rf Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,572
    Religion:
    RF cult leader & taosit black magician
    how so i never saw a reason why the bible was for all people. its for Christians. not all humans. the koran however...
     
  11. The Sum of Awe

    The Sum of Awe Realitarian

    Messages:
    13,901
    Religion:
    Stoicism
    Yes that's what I meant, but if Christians are right, Yahweh was there and Jesus was there and they all had a lot of fun, how can Muslims be right that Allah was there and Jesus was just a prophet etc.
     
  12. Iti oj

    Iti oj guru of the new rf Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,572
    Religion:
    RF cult leader & taosit black magician
    it doesnt have to be about literal truths just revelations on gods nature
     
  13. jasonwill2

    jasonwill2 New Member

    Messages:
    3,963
    I don't think Satan cares terribly what we do as a species, much less what we believe.
     
  14. Breathe

    Breathe Mostly taking a break

    Messages:
    17,122
    Religion:
    Complicated but fairly consistent
    I'm inclusive.

    I believe God is known differently through the language, culture, tradition, history, folklore, myths, thoughts, and so on of the society It is discussed in, but it all refers to the same Thing in different ways, and no religion or philosophy can grasp it wholly.

    I do not believe God would hold it against us if we think something different. Nor would I worship such a God.
     
  15. Iti oj

    Iti oj guru of the new rf Staff Member Premium Member

    Messages:
    10,572
    Religion:
    RF cult leader & taosit black magician
    I think this sums up all my feels on the topic... any exclusive people
     
  16. javajo

    javajo New Member

    Messages:
    2,319
    I believe God is inclusive in that whoever desires to be saved, whoever calls out to him to save them, he will freely save. I believe the reason is because he loves us and is full of mercy and grace. I believe that being a good and holy God, he is also just. I believe the penalty for sin is death and that I have sinned and that I know I have because the Law says don't lie, steal, covet, etc, and I have broken all the 10 Commandments in some sense many times. Since God is just and the penalty for sin is death, the penalty must be paid, which leaves me in a bad spot. But God, because of his great love for me, sent his son who paid the penalty, he died. Now God can accept me and justice was still served, the penalty paid in full by my Savior, Jesus Christ.
     
  17. Breathe

    Breathe Mostly taking a break

    Messages:
    17,122
    Religion:
    Complicated but fairly consistent
    I can't imagine there's a lot of exclusivists here. They're probably more on other forums where X-religion is the majority, I think. :)
     
  18. Alceste

    Alceste Vagabond

    Messages:
    26,030
    My metaphysical model is inclusive. This is not scripture, but lyrics to a song I wrote, which pretty much sums up my opinion:

    I have been taken in sweet solitude
    By the tender light that stirs the dust
    To the sacred hollow that springs forth multitudes
    The holy silence all things trust
    I have wandered through the wilderness
    To know the taste of holy breath
    To feel the ripple of formless tenderness
    That knows dominion over death
    There's a river in which I tumble
    Deep and luminous with mystery
    This boat is sturdy and sound, if humble
    And it will guide me safe to sea.


    And similar sentiments from taoist philosphy:
    Attain the ultimate emptiness
    Hold on to the truest tranquility
    The myriad things are all active
    I therefore watch their return

    Everything flourishes; each returns to its root
    Returning to the root is called tranquility
    Tranquility is called returning to one's nature
    Returning to one's nature is called constancy
    Knowing constancy is called clarity

    Not knowing constancy, one recklessly causes trouble
    Knowing constancy is acceptance
    Acceptance is impartiality
    Impartiality is sovereign
    Sovereign is Heaven
    Heaven is Tao
    Tao is eternal
    The self is no more, without danger

     
    Iti oj likes this.
  19. Curious George

    Curious George New Member

    Messages:
    2,817
    Exclusive:

    Now I have to use a flawed argument for I appeal to consistency. Thus, my argument is persuasive and not a proof.

    If all religions were true, then religion contradicts itself. This contradiction is a human flaw and not proof that the one true religion is beyond the logical bounds of the universe.

    Let us look to chemistry for something analogous. Were I to have ice, water, and steam we could describe the different characteristics of each. Then we could attach the molecular formula. Now, if I say that one of the properties of H2O is a solid form I would be making an illogical conclusion. Yet, I am sitting at my computer and holding bundle of H20 and it is solid. Now someone else is sitting behind their computer and saying "Malarkey!I am drinking water right now and it is liquid that is a property of H20. Still another sits behind their computer pounding the keys of their computer- "BALDERDASH!!!! Everyone knows H20 is a gas. I feel it as I exhale." Is it that all of these are true? In a sense- but the problem actually rests in the interpretation and assumptions of each of the respondents for all of them failed at encompassing the essence of H20 instead they just spoke about the manifestation of H20 with which they were comfortable.

    Another analogy in science is light. One says light is a wave. Another insists light is a particle. Who is right? It is not that they are both right but rather that they are both wrong.

    Now imagine all of us in a circle. We are each drawing a woman who stands in the middle of us. each with our own style and bias. Each with our own imperfect observation. Were we to collect all of the drawings and compare would they be the same? surely not. Though,would they all be pictures of the woman? Yes. However, instead of taking the point of view that all of our pictures are of the woman and therefore true, I suggest that all of our copies are false with an element of truth. And, just because each perspective has an element of truth does not mean that all the pictures are true. For, are all our pictures accurate? Only from our perspective. They are not the truth. The truth is the woman in the middle. Our renditions of that truth are only a abject copy of the entity which we try to encapsulate.

    The best we for what we can hope is to extract the nuggets of truth and eliminate the style and bias which arise from a subjective opinion. When this is done, we will still not have the truth. Yet we will certainly have a more complete version, and therefore a more true understanding.
     
  20. jasonwill2

    jasonwill2 New Member

    Messages:
    3,963
    I should also expand; I have noticed that for those who truly go on to embrace Satan, Satan has always been accepting, embracing, and fully inclusive. Satan shuns none, but he does not bother those who ignore him, nor does he even bother with those who defame him. He seems to only care for those individuals who come to him, and for those people, I have never seen him do anything but accept them unconditionally.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted