The Exclusivity of Christianity: Myth or Reality

[Rise]

I've learned you can't take anything for granted when it comes to issues like this. People can say they believe the Bible, and appeal to it as an authority source for truth, but then when confronted with parts of the Bible that disagree with their viewpoint they reveal they actually don't believe all of it -only the parts that agree with them.
It's a lot easier to know this upfront, saving time in the conversation

I wonder if we have a different approach to people. I assume that people are basically good regardless of their background, faith, colour, gender, nationality, financial status etc. I don't think you start from that point. If you do, you haven't with me. I suspect that you are not too happy that I have started a thread on this forum challenging religious bigotry disguised as being something from God.
...
I think you minimise others importance and exaggerate your own. I've seen you do it on another thread and that's exactly your attitude in your discussions with me. I don't know what world you come from and where you live but in this world we are two souls that are choosing to engage in a discussion by mutual consent.

When I asked you to point out anything I did said to you in this thread was wrong, the only thing you could cite was me asking you to clarify your position on the Bible. Which you misinterpreted as me somehow attacking you.

Now you've accused me of "not seeing people as basically good" and arrogance when all I've done is point out contradictions in your understanding of scripture and ask clarifying questions.

You are making a lot of judgements and assumptions about me for someone who claims to value doing neither.

Once again you need to look at my posts and see that I have answered quite a few of your questions in a reasoned manner, often referring to scripture or giving direct quotes.
...
You have asked so many questions that it is unreasonable to expect me to answer them all from a simple matter of time. I'm a busy person with a busy life. So recognising that clearly applies for us both, we need to be focused.

I never faulted you for not having time to respond quickly. The problem was you never responded , and then declared you were done with this discussion.

For example: I gave you scripture that disproves your claim that Christ was "not primarily for the Jews", and asked you questions challenging that claim. You just ignored it.

If you can't resolve and reconcile foundational mistakes about what the Bible says about the Jews and their relationship to Messiah, then every other viewpoint you build on top of that incorrect premise is going to be skewed.

There's a world of difference between me posing a question to you for the simple purpose of accurately understanding what your frame of reference is, versus you posing three questions that are completely unrelated to this thread whose stated purpose is to only to smugly determine whether or not you think I'm reasonable enough for you to debate with.

There's no difference actually. I suspect the difference is you feel you have the right to question me, but don't believe I have the right to question you.

You declared my questions irrelevant and then asked a whole lot more of me! The questions I asked you are simple questions and I could answer them in a few minutes. If you really knew your bible you would be able to as well.

The fact that you don't see the difference is concerning.
There's a polar opposite difference between questioning someone as a person versus asking questions of them.

I asked questions for the innocent and genuine purpose of being able to accurately understand where you are coming from, which shows respect for you that I desire to not misrepresent what you believe. My questions were also not a litmus test to determine whether or not I would continue talking with you.

Your idea of questions was a challenge, a test of reason, meant to prove whether or not you found me to be reasonable enough to have a discussion with. And I'm not just assuming that, because you bluntly stated that was your purpose for asking the questions.

That's a pretty arrogant and disrespectful position to take from someone who claims to detest arrogance and claims to desire respect and courtesy in discussions.
I don't recognize your authority to judge whether or not I "have the capacity for reason", and as such have no need to take your test.

I'll let my reasoning of Scripture speak for itself, and your lack of ability to respond with reasoned Scripture also speak for itself.

Your certainly have stated repetitively with abundant clarity the low opinion you hold of me, and the great esteem which you view yourself. Where's the love and humility?

I did not have a low opinion of you as a person when I was responding to you. Nor do I intend to communicate that even now. You're reading things into my comments that don't exist, based on judgements you've made about who you think I am.

I'm just pointing out the truth, and highlighting the hypocrisy you're engaged in because maybe it will help for an easier conversation going forward:
I'm not the one who is holding litmus tests to see if the other person is worthy of engaging with discussion with.
I'm not the one who started slinging labels around like "arrogant", "unloving", "without capacity for reason".
And I'm not the one who started talking about how much more tolerant and loving I am in contrast to you.

You appear to be taking my scriptural and logical challenges to your beliefs about scripture as personal attacks, while assigning all kinds of characteristics to someone you don't know. That was not my intent or my heart in posting, and I don't believe you'll find that reflected in the text of my posts if you were to reread them.

The only reason I went down this rabbit trail with you is because I actually did want to continue discussing the scripture with you and see how you would defend your position. I was honestly surprised by your statements and desire to end the discussion, because your assumptions and judgements about me didn't reflect anything I was feeling or thinking. So I'm glad to clear that up and see you're willing to engage again.

 

[oldbadger]

For me, as you are someone who was married to a Baha'i for 20 years you have a very close connection to the faith unlike many who have had little contact or experience with the religion. You have clearly had much association with the Baha'is over the years and know a great deal. I regard you as a friend of the Faith.

The same JW couple have been visiting here for quarter of a century. They can park their car on our driveway whenever in the area, because parking is difficult. My wife makes them brilliant coffee, and we discuss and debate about the bible, and life. We are as close friends as pagans can be to JWs.
If you lived in the area you could park your car here and my wife would make you brilliant coffee (I do the tea) and we would be as close friends as pagans could be to Bahais.

I work as a GP in a relatively deprived area of my small city, so am often intimately familiar with my patients struggles. Prior to GP work, I did psychiatry so even more intense. Perhaps the greatest struggle is a spiritual one when patients have no framework for understanding why they suffer and what they can do about it. The medical model with its emphasis on biology can only go so far.

I think that Jesus was a master of the charismatic 'stun', a master of the psychological placebo and had a keen eye for the devious deception...... turning all into amazing cures which so stunned onlookers as to be described as miracles.
Your medical background would be a perfect foundation for such speculative research.

I once watched a psychiatrist perform a miracle. My first wife suffered what were then known as horrific hysterical convulsions and fits, so bad that Sigmund Freud's filmed patients were mild examples (!). Children singing was one of the many triggers. There was an experimental clinic annexed to Guy's hospital for the most acute Psychiatric conditions and my wife stayed there for a very long time. One day I was visiting her just before Christmas, and a specialist was speaking with us when children singing carols were heard outside. My wife went into first and second stages of what would become a dreadfully violent convulsion. The psychiatrist moved close and slapped her so hard across the face, shouting 'don't you dare do that to me!'........ and she sat back, stroked her hair and asked him quietly if he would be working there over Christmas. I think that's the kind of event that Jesus might have managed with ease.

Sadly, the Psychiatrist that had the most success with her was later convicted on a token 13 counts of 'putting patients under' and then raping or sexually assaulting them. Two hospitals discovered and got rid of him quietly before he was caught. He was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in about 2001, ten years after her death (Dr A).

Its wonderful your wife works in a vet clinic because the wellbeing of our animal companions, like medicine is considered highly in the Baha'i writings.

I didn't know that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Lets explore another point of difference between us.

I said that the Gospel of Christ was largely for the Gentiles:

I don't think you are hearing me on this one. The Gospel of Christ was largely for the non-Jews.. We get to catch up with the Jews. The Jews despite their rejection are still Gods' chosen people, God still loves them and salvation is still available to them through the Abrahamic Covenant, despite their rejection of their Messiah.

You refuted this as follows:

Based on what scripture? The scripture contradicts your claim:
Matthew 10:5
Matthew 15:24
Jesus was sent first to the Jews.
Almost the entirety of the audience to which He spoke were Jews.
In a sense he was sent only to the Jews, because it was His apostles who were sent out to the gentiles in His name.

Not only does the Scripture say He was sent to the Jews, but it says they rejected Him:
John 1:11-12. And those who did not receive Him did not get to become children of God.

Further, Peter, speaking to the Jews, said this:
Acts of the Apostles 2:36-41

Do you not realize that scripturally, both OT and NT, the Messiah is the promised savior of the Jews? He's never said, or even implied, to only be the savior of the gentiles. The scripture is clear: Jesus was sent to save the Jews. His commands are meant for them as much as everyone else. There is no scriptural justification for saying otherwise.

Of course Jesus was sent first to the Jews. Of course the entirety of His audience was almost exclusively Jews. However the indisputable fact remains the Jews largely rejected Him, whereas the Gentiles did not.

God as well as being Loving and Just is
Omniscient,
All-Powerful,
and has a plan.

God who knows everything clearly foresaw HIs chosen people would reject Him. He foresaw this as revealed through the prophet Isaiah 8:15-16

"And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken.
Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples."

The Apostle Paul referred to this stumbling block to the Jews as follows:

"What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." Romans 9

Jesus of course made clear He knew the Jews would reject Him when He prophesized the destruction of the Temple and warned His followers to flee Judea:

"And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
Matthew 24:1-2

"Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains" Matthew 24:16

God is omniscient. He knew the Gospel would be rejected by the Jews, and spread through out the Gentiles.

God is All-Powerful. If He wanted it to be otherwise He would have and could intervened.

God has a plan and this was in accordance with His bidding.

Why was that? Romans 9 and Romans 11 helps us to better understand Gods' purpose in regards to the Jews and Gentiles.

As for the salvation of the Jews St Paul has said:

" For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes." Romans 11:25-28

And Jesus whose forgiveness was perfect has said we should forgive seven times seventy times (in reference to the book of Daniel) Matthew 18:22. He indicated forgiveness towards those that would do harms as follows:

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Matthew 12:30-31

"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots." Luke 23:34

We know of course the punishment the Jews and the fate of the Jews as they were deprived of the wisdom of their Messiah as they were to be dispersed after the destruction of their temple and Jerusalem and cast away from their homeland.

This punishment does not deny they are still Gods chosen people, but they were NOT cast into Hell.

They did after all still have the Mosaic Teachings in their midst, a Mighty Covenant sent by a Mighty God.

Within His teachings is the greatest commandment!

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:"

I believe the Jews will be the first as a Nation to recognise His second coming. That's another story.

I hope we can find some common ground. If not then so be it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The same JW couple have been visiting here for quarter of a century. They can park their car on our driveway whenever in the area, because parking is difficult. My wife makes them brilliant coffee, and we discuss and debate about the bible, and life. We are as close friends as pagans can be to JWs.
If you lived in the area you could park your car here and my wife would make you brilliant coffee (I do the tea) and we would be as close friends as pagans could be to Bahais.


I think that Jesus was a master of the charismatic 'stun', a master of the psychological placebo and had a keen eye for the devious deception...... turning all into amazing cures which so stunned onlookers as to be described as miracles.
Your medical background would be a perfect foundation for such speculative research.

I once watched a psychiatrist perform a miracle. My first wife suffered what were then known as horrific hysterical convulsions and fits, so bad that Sigmund Freud's filmed patients were mild examples (!). Children singing was one of the many triggers. There was an experimental clinic annexed to Guy's hospital for the most acute Psychiatric conditions and my wife stayed there for a very long time. One day I was visiting her just before Christmas, and a specialist was speaking with us when children singing carols were heard outside. My wife went into first and second stages of what would become a dreadfully violent convulsion. The psychiatrist moved close and slapped her so hard across the face, shouting 'don't you dare do that to me!'........ and she sat back, stroked her hair and asked him quietly if he would be working there over Christmas. I think that's the kind of event that Jesus might have managed with ease.

Sadly, the Psychiatrist that had the most success with her was later convicted on a token 13 counts of 'putting patients under' and then raping or sexually assaulting them. Two hospitals discovered and got rid of him quietly before he was caught. He was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in about 2001, ten years after her death (Dr A).


I didn't know that.

I would really like to be dropping round for that coffee. We would have some great chats for sure.

The JWs here have surprised me on RF in that they have been the most engaging denomination of Christianity by far.

Psychiatrists have a dodgy reputation for all sorts of reasons and have to be very careful to practice in a manner where they would not be put themselves at risk. I was straight up, but pleased to leave it behind to deal with more sane people in general practice.

I had sad news today. A neurologist phoned me to tell me a mutual patient with epilepsy had died. He had been travelling between England and New Zealand and liked to cycle. So when in England about 10 days ago he was cycling, had a seizure, ended up in water as he was crossing a bridge and drowned. He was nearly 30. Made me think of your wife.

In the days of Jesus mental illness and epilepsy were spoken of in terms of demonic possession. While we don't always have the answers medically, exorcism would be a massive step backwards and wonder if great harm would result. Then again someone tried to exorcise demons from me when I was a Christian and it drove me to another religion Thank you dear Christians for showing me the way!

Best Wishes

 

[oldbadger]

I would really like to be dropping round for that coffee. We would have some great chats for sure.

The JWs here have surprised me on RF in that they have been the most engaging denomination of Christianity by far.

Yes..... I have amazing chats with JWs, may recent thread about Jesus and Caesar's coin was initiated because of a heated discussion!

Around here JWs have the reputation of being totally honest in everything. JW tradesmen are often chosen by people above all others. True!

Psychiatrists have a dodgy reputation for all sorts of reasons and have to be very careful to practice in a manner where they would not be put themselves at risk. I was straight up, but pleased to leave it behind to deal with more sane people in general practice.

Fair enough.

I had sad news today. A neurologist phoned me to tell me a mutual patient with epilepsy had died. He had been travelling between England and New Zealand and liked to cycle. So when in England about 10 days ago he was cycling, had a seizure, ended up in water as he was crossing a bridge and drowned. He was nearly 30. Made me think of your wife.

That is most sad. Some epileptics get a few seconds warning, but my wife did not.

In the days of Jesus mental illness and epilepsy were spoken of in terms of demonic possession. While we don't always have the answers medically, exorcism would be a massive step backwards and wonder if great harm would result. Then again someone tried to exorcise demons from me when I was a Christian and it drove me to another religion Thank you dear Christians for showing me the way!

Best Wishes

Mediterranean males have a much higher incidence of hysteria than Northern Europeans.
This can manifest itself in the most amazing ways. My first wife once 'had a stroke' and fell with left-face distorted and right side inoperable. She was at work in a pensioner care-home at the time. Paramedics came out, and the house-doctor was present. An ambulance was called. But then I arrived. I went in to the room, saw her prostrate upon the floor, and called out merrily to her. I did a little jig from side to side and laughed. (you can imagine what the medics thought) and then I said, 'Hello love! Let's go home and have some tea!'
She jumped up, smiling, ran towards me, embraced, and then we two-stepped out to the car and I got her home safe, she was physically perfectly well. Sadly, within a few hours, I needed to take her back to the Mental Hospital because she hit and hurt her neighbourhood best-friend.

Jesus didn't need to hold exorcisms, he just touched folks for an auto-suggested cure, I reckon.

 

[pearl]

{The Exclusivity of Christianity: Myth or Reality
Is their reasonable justification for Christians' claims that only their faith can save? Is there a better way of understanding salvation?}

It is unreasonable to claim that all Christianity believes the same concerning who may be saved. While all Christians hold to the authority of Scripture, interpretation must consider the intent of the author, that is the literal truth, (not to be confused with literalist), but a 'living' Scripture must speak also to the world of today, through continuous theology and Christology.
We believe firmly that all salvation is through Christ, that salvation in Christ is not exclusive to Christians, "it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of their own religion respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation even while they do not recognize or acknowledge Him as their Saviour.
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery"

 

[Dawnofhope]

{The Exclusivity of Christianity: Myth or Reality
Is their reasonable justification for Christians' claims that only their faith can save? Is there a better way of understanding salvation?}

It is unreasonable to claim that all Christianity believes the same concerning who may be saved. While all Christians hold to the authority of Scripture, interpretation must consider the intent of the author, that is the literal truth, (not to be confused with literalist), but a 'living' Scripture must speak also to the world of today, through continuous theology and Christology.
We believe firmly that all salvation is through Christ, that salvation in Christ is not exclusive to Christians, "it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of their own religion respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation even while they do not recognize or acknowledge Him as their Saviour.
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of coming into contact, in a way known to God, with the paschal mystery"

Thank you for the post.

I suspect the Catholic Church have not always believed this. When do you think the change came and why?

Do the words in italics represent the Catholic Church?

 

[pearl]

suspect the Catholic Church have not always believed this. When do you think the change came and why?

Represented is ongoing theology that probably came to a head in the years preceding Vatican II culminating in the official teaching of the Council which insists that the Jews are not only saved in their covenant, but remain God's chosen.

{QUOTE Do the words in italics represent the Catholic Church?[/QUOTE]

From the Council quoted by John Paul II

The theologian, Karl Rahner adopted the saying 'anonymous Christian'. His intent, there is no outside Christ.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Represented is ongoing theology that probably came to a head in the years preceding Vatican II culminating in the official teaching of the Council which insists that the Jews are not only saved in their covenant, but remain God's chosen.

{QUOTE Do the words in italics represent the Catholic Church?

Thanks for that. I'll do some research.

In regards to the salvation of the Jews, I am debating this with a Christian who appears to argue that Jews are not saved because they have rejected Christ. My post #243 argues they are. If you are interested I would appreciate your thoughts about how such an argument could be better expressed and what other scripture would make the point more clearly.

Best Wishes

 

[psychoslice]

Here we go, were going to hear a lot of wonderful stories, lla,about the wonderful Jesus, and of course that makes it so lol

 

[Dawnofhope]

Here we go, were going to hear a lot of wonderful stories, lla,about the wonderful Jesus, and of course that makes it so lol

I came across an interesting story on face book recently. It was about a man of African- American descent who visited the local klu klux clan outfit in his neighbourhood. Evidently the KKK were quite hospitable and so he heard what they had to say about their philosophy. He did not argue, asked questions, and allowed the members their platform to fully express their views and beliefs. Through this he built a relationship. In time they offered him the same platform to express his views. As time went on the relationship developed and became more positive. Eventually some of the members no longer wanted to be part of the KKK anymore and actually gave him their outfits.

Christian fundamentalism IMHO is no less an evil and blight to the progress of civilisation and the modern world. We are talking about people who view their way of viewing their religion as the only way and everyone else is damned! What I am doing, rightly or wrongly is reaching into that darkness, and engaging in meaningful interfaith discussion with anyone who is interested. Where it leads....

 

[psychoslice]

I came across an interesting story on face book recently. It was about a man of African- American descent who visited the local klu klux clan outfit in his neighbourhood. Evidently the KKK were quite hospitable and so he heard what they had to say about their philosophy. He did not argue, asked questions, and allowed the members their platform to fully express their views and beliefs. Through this he built a relationship. In time they offered him the same platform to express his views. As time went on the relationship developed and became more positive. Eventually some of the members no longer wanted to be part of the KKK anymore and actually gave him their outfits.

Christian fundamentalism IMHO is no less an evil and blight to the progress of civilisation and the modern world. We are talking about people who view their way of viewing their religion as the only way and everyone else is damned! What I am doing, rightly or wrongly is reaching into that darkness, and engaging in meaningful interfaith discussion with anyone who is interested. Where it leads....

All religion has caused misery throughout the years, no matter what that religion is, history tells us that, so what are you trying to protect, your pride ?.

 

[Dawnofhope]

All religion has caused misery throughout the years, no matter what that religion is, history tells us that, so what are you trying to protect, your pride ?.

No. While acknowledging the misery that religion has caused I see the need for it too. Where is a civilisation that has had no religion? The communists tried and look what happened.

 

[psychoslice]

No. While acknowledging the misery that religion has caused I see the need for it too. Where is a civilisation that has had no religion? The communists tried and look what happened.

That maybe so, but that is also sad, are we all that stupid that we need a god in the sky to tell us how to be good, yes that seems to be the solution, we are stupid.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That maybe so, but that is also sad, are we all that stupid that we need a god in the sky to tell us how to be good, yes that seems to be the solution, we are stupid.

Who said anything about a God in the sky? That's language from a bygone era. I believe in Baha'u'llah and therein I see the hope for humanity. But I also see God in most people I come in contact, yourself included. My concern is no longer just for myself, but for the world. With a vision we flourish, without we perish.

 

[psychoslice]

Who said anything about a God in the sky? That's language from a bygone era. I believe in Baha'u'llah and therein I see the hope for humanity. But I also see God in most people I come in contact, yourself included. My concern is no longer just for myself, but for the world. With a vision we flourish, without we perish.

Yes but what does that really mean, do you really know what God is, be truthful ?.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes but what does that really mean, do you really know what God is, be truthful ?.

Of course not. God is an unknowable essence

But as the Christians know Him through Christ, I know Him through Baha'u'llah.

 

[psychoslice]

Of course not. God is an unknowable essence

But as the Christians know Him through Christ, I know Him through Baha'u'llah.

But does that also make you know all about God ?.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But does that also make you know all about God ?.

Sufficient knowledge to walk in His ways

 

[psychoslice]

Sufficient knowledge to walk in His ways

Yes, and what on earth does that mean lol.