I've NEVER been able to get a straight answer on this + it BUGS me!...

[Riverwolf]

Every time I've ventured into a church (or have seen/heard) a precher preaching, the sermon always ends the same way -- asking me (or anyone) to come forward and (basically) agree that accepting Jesus is the *ONLY* way to salvation (and yes, the word ONLY is EMPHASIZED every time).

And every time, I'm sittin' there thinking -- 'nope - no can do -- sorry preacher guy.' I simply will not / cannot agree that the Jesus path is the *ONLY* way to 'salvation.' Because by doing so, I am (basically) saying that the 'other' guys have it all wrong. I cannot agree to that concept. It tanints the whole organization.

I've been to a Methodist church a couple of times that had NO talk whatsoever of exclusivity, hell, damnation, etc. AT ALL. My girlfriend, who used to be a Christian who attended that church, tells me that they never spoke of it in the past.

PS: You're welcome. ^_^ I look forward to further discussions (including this one.)

 

[wonderingmind]

I'm sure many people are going through the same inner battle over this issue. It's a hurdle that is keeping my spiritual 'lobe' in arrested development! If I can truly get past it, I would be grateful! A logjam would vanish.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sure many people are going through the same inner battle over this issue. It's a hurdle that is keeping my spiritual 'lobe' in arrested development! If I can truly get past it, I would be grateful! A logjam would vanish.

You can be spiritual without theism. :yes:

Have you done any studying of Eastern or Pagan religions?

(BTW, you're right. I went through a similar inner battle at one point, when I first started studying religions back in high school.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Every time I've ventured into a church (or have seen/heard) a precher preaching, the sermon always ends the same way -- asking me (or anyone) to come forward and (basically) agree that accepting Jesus is the *ONLY* way to salvation (and yes, the word ONLY is EMPHASIZED every time).

Funny, I've never heard this at any Christian service I've ever been to. But I've only ever been to Baptist, Catholic, Anglican, Greek Orthodox and Quaker services.

Wait - there might've been one time: when I was doing stage crew work, our theatre once got rented for a revival... but the whole thing was in Tamil, so I have no idea what they were saying (except for "Hallelujah!" - I got that much).

 

[eatingcannibal]

I simply will not / cannot agree that the Jesus path is the *ONLY* way to 'salvation.' Because by doing so, I am (basically) saying that the 'other' guys have it all wrong. I cannot agree to that concept. It taints the whole organization.

I find your insight and corresponding stance on this to be the only objective one (even though it may deviate from the "true" path to salvation, and you may indeed be posthumously tortured with fire for all of eternity). Because, there is no objectively sound basis on which it can be concluded that one faith has got it all right, and the others, all wrong. Exponents of all faiths mirror each other's convictions, and there is no legitimate reason to trust one group over all of the others. I say it's only fair to grant them the same likelihood of accuracy (e.g. not accurate AT ALL, if you ask me.)

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm not really asking that -- because (according to my own sensibilities) it feels like a religion that preaches exclusivity, cannot possibly 'correct.'

Because by doing so, I am (basically) saying that the 'other' guys have it all wrong.

However, you have no problem with saying that they have it wrong?

Like the 'allowance for ingnorance' idea. It's condescending + patronizing. Like, "you don't believe the 'correct' things, but I'll allow for that, because you are just plain ignorant."

Everybody is ignorant about something, or lots of things ,

 

[Riverwolf]

Exponents of all faiths mirror each other's convictions...

"Truth is One, Sages call it by many Names."
-Rig Veda 1.164:46

In Hinduism, all other religions are viewed as different paths to the same thing. IOW, in Hinduism, there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong" with regards to religion.

 

[eatingcannibal]

"Truth is One, Sages call it by many Names."
-Rig Veda 1.164:46

In Hinduism, all other religions are viewed as different paths to the same thing. IOW, in Hinduism, there's no such thing as "right" or "wrong" with regards to religion.

Are you building on what I've said, or attempting to argue with it? It may be the case that Hinduism grants equal credence to all religions (and I'll trust you on this point, that it does), but this doesn't at all deter from what I'm getting at. "Exponents of all faiths mirror each other's convictions," I said. Even if Hindus don't think Christians or Muslims necessarily have it wrong, by choosing Hinduism over Christianity and Islam, they've displayed the same preference towards Hinduism that the Christian has about Christianity, and the Muslim, Islam, and still believe that they've chosen one of the correct paths. In simpler terms, every religious person thinks they've got it right, whether or not they embrace the possibility of other "rights" is irrelevant.

 

[dust1n]

@ penguin...

"this leaves room for God to save whoever he wants, baptized or not, Christian or not."

now that makes sense. makes me breathe easier. a large part of the religious 'lobe' of the brain (or part of the heart/soul) to me, is humility. It seems like humility cannot exist in the same room as exclusivity and/or superiority. If my path is leading toward humility, it must be leading away from exclsuivity + superiority -- no?

Hey wonderingmind; just thougth I let you know there is a quote button, that makes these cool passage things. Use thoses, who I can see to what text you are responding to.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[dust1n]

In simpler terms, every religious person thinks they've got it right, whether or not they embrace the possibility of other "rights" is irrelevant.

Agreed, though I think these holds true beyond religious topics.

 

[Riverwolf]

Are you building on what I've said, or attempting to argue with it? It may be the case that Hinduism grants equal credence to all religions (and I'll trust you on this point, that it does), but this doesn't at all deter from what I'm getting at. "Exponents of all faiths mirror each other's convictions," I said. Even if Hindus don't think Christians or Muslims necessarily have it wrong, by choosing Hinduism over Christianity and Islam, they've displayed the same preference towards Hinduism that the Christian has about Christianity, and the Muslim, Islam, and still believe that they've chosen one of the correct paths. In simpler terms, every religious person thinks they've got it right, whether or not they embrace the possibility of other "rights" is irrelevant.

Not necessarily.

I don't think I "have it right." It's not about "correct" and "incorrect." It's about choosing a path that suits the individual's nature. Atheistic philosophies and views are just as valid as any other, so long as the individual is liberated: i.e., able to live to his or her fullest potential.

From what I've seen, Vedanta and Monistic Saivism allow me to reach for my fullest potential. From what I've seen, they would be of no use to you.

 

[eatingcannibal]

Agreed, though I think these holds true beyond religious topics.

For sure. A significant difference being that in all other domains (or at least every one I can come up with...) coherence and accuracy are testable and demonstrable. For instance, it is available for everybody to see that Einstein's interpretation of relativity fits with the way the world works better than Newton's. To the contrary, there are no real means by which we can assess certain religious claims (about the afterlife, for example).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For sure. A significant difference being that in all other domains (or at least every one I can come up with...) coherence and accuracy are testable and demonstrable.

Heh... test and demonstrate that these are coherent and accurate (or not):

- the Democrat platform makes more sense than the Republican platform.
- in general, private-enterprise solutions are better than government-run ones.
- Star Trek is much better than Star Wars.
- the Ottawa Senators suck. Their fans suck, too.
- golf is a pointless waste of time.
- chocolate is better than vanilla.
- the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo is a better car than the Subaru Imreza WRX STi.

 

[eatingcannibal]

Not necessarily.

I don't think I "have it right." It's not about "correct" and "incorrect." It's about choosing a path that suits the individual's nature. Atheistic philosophies and views are just as valid as any other, so long as the individual is liberated: i.e., able to live to his or her fullest potential.

From what I've seen, Vedanta and Monistic Saivism allow me to reach for my fullest potential. From what I've seen, they would be of no use to you.

I understand. I think that my comments are of a narrower focus than the point you're making. When I said that a believer assumes that they've "got it right," I was talking on the topic of salvation: making it to Heaven, avoiding Hell, etc. I'm discussing salvation and consequences specifically, not religion in terms of personal growth, liberation, etc. I hope I've clarified.

 

[dust1n]

For sure. A significant difference being that in all other domains (or at least every one I can come up with...) coherence and accuracy are testable and demonstrable. For instance, it is available for everybody to see that Einstein's interpretation of relativity fits with the way the world works better than Newton's. To the contrary, there are no real means by which we can assess certain religious claims (about the afterlife, for example).

True to some degree, but without religion, there still lies 'metaphysics', 'ontology', 'philosophy of the mind', 'epistemology', 'logic', 'ethics', 'aesthetics', and 'axiology', though, I don't doubt a lot of these questions will be better answered as science progresses; 'thought experiments' for example.

 

[eatingcannibal]

Heh... test and demonstrate that these are coherent and accurate (or not):

- the Democrat platform makes more sense than the Republican platform.
- in general, private-enterprise solutions are better than government-run ones.
- Star Trek is much better than Star Wars.
- the Ottawa Senators suck. Their fans suck, too.
- golf is a pointless waste of time.
- chocolate is better than vanilla.
- the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo is a better car than the Subaru Imreza WRX STi.

Haha. And I should've seen that coming

 

[Riverwolf]

I understand. I think that my comments are of a narrower focus than the point you're making. When I said that a believer assumes that they've "got it right," I was talking on the topic of salvation: making it to Heaven, avoiding Hell, etc. I'm discussing salvation and consequences specifically, not religion in terms of personal growth, liberation, etc. I hope I've clarified.

Ah, I get it.

Hinduism does have a heaven/hell concept. Heaven is reached by worshiping gods for personal gain, while hell is reached by breaking dharma and living sinfully. However, neither are eternal; once the karma is spent, the soul is said to come back to earth. (This is, of course, mythology; I, personally, use this as a metaphor for what happens during life.)

This isn't, however, the only option in Hindu religions.

 

[dust1n]

Just for fun.

Heh... test and demonstrate that these are coherent and accurate (or not):

- the Democrat platform makes more sense than the Republican platform.

The democratic platform relies more on a 'progressive' stance (I know.. it doesn't really), while the Republican platform relies more on 'conservative' politics, which is obviously dumb considering how ****** the world is operating right now.

- in general, private-enterprise solutions are better than government-run ones.

Well, depends on the 'problem' and the 'context'.

- Star Trek is much better than Star Wars.

Star Trek was pretty intelligent, Star Wars was over-obsessed with duality.

- the Ottawa Senators suck. Their fans suck, too.

Well, that's just straight opinion. According to their Wikipedia page, they aren't really worth mentioning.

Ottawa, Ontario - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- golf is a pointless waste of time.

With every action, man can gain anything form any activity, but he misses out of on a million others.

- chocolate is better than vanilla.

Well, this is just an evident truth.

- the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo is a better car than the Subaru Imreza WRX STi.

Depends in what ways you are referring to the Lancer as 'better'. They both have pros and cons.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Every Christian presentation I've ever seen or heard, contains that 'exclusivity' aspect. In fact it is a featured part of every presentaiton I've seen/heard. An integral part of the message.

Hence my confusion (+ revulsion).

Not the Quakers or Unity.

 

[Smoke]

And every time, I'm sittin' there thinking -- 'nope - no can do -- sorry preacher guy.' I simply will not / cannot agree that the Jesus path is the *ONLY* way to 'salvation.' Because by doing so, I am (basically) saying that the 'other' guys have it all wrong. I cannot agree to that concept. It taints the whole organization.

I agree. So get out of church. There are a lot of other religions; you might even decide you don't need any of them.