Inclusive & Exclusive - Belief - Page 3

Bandit · 02-20-2006, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by didymus

Sorry I am late to this thread. I didn't know it was started off of one of my comments until today. I'm flattered. Awe shucks. I didn't read all posts yet because I wanted t0 reply to the comment that the Bible doesnt' speak of reincarnation. There is reference to reincarnation in the NT, Let's talk about Elijah. Was or was not Elijah expected to return to prepare the way for the Messiah. This was no other than John the Baptist who was indeed believed to be Elijah. In fact Jesus even confirmd this in Matthew 17 10-13. Also Matthew 11 13-15.

it is confusing for me didymus because i am still seeing 3 or 4 different possibilities. i am still praying about the whole Elijah thing. it appears to me that one way or another there is something missing or something that aint being seen right & it dont add up. i agree with those two scriptures you gave there between elijah, JTB & Jesus & that should have been elijah as JTB. i have heard it given many different ways, so i am still wating before making a final conclusion on the whole of the matter. there seems to be something deeper than what appears on the surface. IMO

Dondi · 02-20-2006, 05:56 PM

Perhaps you all ought to create a new thread on this reincarnation issue. We seemed to have drifted from the OP. I would be interested in such a dicussion, but keep this thread open as well.

wil · 02-20-2006, 06:56 PM

argghh there are returns in my original yet they won't accept them when I submit..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondi

Perhaps you all ought to create a new thread on this reincarnation issue. We seemed to have drifted from the OP. I would be interested in such a dicussion, but keep this thread open as well.

this is a perfect expample of the imperfection of the 'new posts' tab...I've been online twice only to see nothing on this thread...only to find it has been so active... and yes Dondi drifted quite a ways from the original thread. a. I'd like to see the reincarnation thread...and b. the burning/purification thread....and c. the sin/confesson/absolution thread ...and d. the blood and body thread... So to quickly catch up and toss in my two cents... As again I strive to follow the example of our elder brother and wayshower, yet don't always see eye to eye with all...a. I can't believe that our forgiving loving father would only give us one chance in this dimension and then off to hell...and b. that the trial by fire analogy is appropriate as it is used to seperate the gold or silver from false metals and seperate our true godly in his image self from our egos, noting that the gold is not harmed in the process....c. I'm of the 'we are not punished for our sins but by them' camp...and d. believe that the symbolic blood of christ is spritual heavenly thought and the body is earthly materialistic thought. back to your regular programming... I guess truth be known, if the other christians can accept the above into their fold that is one in the inclusive direction...now if they also can accept buddhists, taoists, muslims, jews, hindus, those of wiccan and atheists as brothers and sisters on the path to find truth...they can argue they are not exclusive...

taijasi · 02-20-2006, 11:01 PM

Hmm! Wil, as I read your post, it occurs to me ... to say something that, might be obvious, but then, I'll go ahead and say it just in case. As we talk about inclusivity and exclusivity ... I think we would be making a tremendous mistake if we did not factor in "the personal equation," since imho, that is what can make alllll the difference.

And yet, even as we are told not to judge, and asked to forgive those around us - friend or foe - even the best of us has our ups & downs, good days & bad days, and while we might ordinarily be level-headed & reasonable, it's not impossible that something could tick us off, or deeply upset us ... at a moment's notice. The result, if we react rather than respond ... be it to a post at CR, something another person said, or perhaps something we just saw in the news ... can easily misrepresent our true feelings, or our true self.

I think the reverse is true, in that we can also tend to be more forgiving sometimes, depending our mood ... such that what might otherwise have bothered us or prompted a different reaction, provokes, instead, the very best in us ... and that is an even-more-than-usual, pleasant result. It could show up at CR as a particularly Ecumenical post, or something very inclusive in tone & spirit, indeed.

I don't mean to write an essay here about various personality qualities, and spiritual virtues, but for certain reasons, your post reminds me, Wil, of the great value and importance (for me, at least) of trying to regard others through the lens of energetic qualities, such as the Seven Rays, which I've posted about on other threads. We so often become accustomed to identifying, both ourselves & others, using such labels as religious choice, gender, ethnic background, occupation, and appearance. Not that any of these is a bad thing, or that such understanding isn't helpful. Of course it is.

But it just occurs that as we consider inclusivity & exclusivity, these concepts can be taken at many, many different levels ... and as Bandit has pointed out several times now, which only finally has managed to seep through into my silly brain ... choosing our beliefs, or religious preferences, is itself an example of how we include & exclude. We do it all the time, in one way or another, since this is the very manner in which humans think!

Both our conscious & unconscious mind acts according to an extremely sophisticated set of filters ... and these affect our very perceptions of physical reality, to say nothing of our emotions, and the ideas streaming through our awareness as part & parcel of daily living. Here, our very survival can sometimes depend on what we choose to include, and what we choose to exclude, and how we go about it, including how quickly, or how adeptly ... usually in dealing with physical matters, but also internally, it seems.

All of this is very important, and each person, in this sense, is quite a unique individual, different from all other poeple, no matter how similar in other regards. "No two people think alike," the saying goes - and I am suddenly struck (as if for the first time in a long time!) - by how true this really is.

Yet there is something else which I consider of far more importance to our discussion, and I'm wondering if people agree. If I've made sense so far, then this should follow ... it occurs to me now, that there two more ways (or possibly three), in which we may either include or exclude. I'm not after an exigesis here

... so let me just spit these out:

I think we can, at the simplest level, include/exclude others through touch, physical affection, or physical intimacy. This is also obvious, I guess, but it bears mentioning, because it seems to me as a natural correspondence to the rest of this.
Another very important way in which we choose to include or exclude, is emotionally. We can choose, by our very feelings, to open to, or accept, others. Other people, other ideas, other types of activity - like sports, games, entertainment, etc. And here, the amazing thing is that we have different types of emotions. Some are more instinctual, and reactionary ... while there warmer, more developed feelings, and these occur invariably as we get to know people, even if there is also friction to a degree. Through discipline, we know that we can learn to get along, and be friendly, just as we are able to include an exercise regimen, or force ourself to learn a new language. These may not seem like emotional activities, but I think it is a strength of our will that enables us to embrace, emotionally, either ideas, people, or activities or circumstances, which would otherwise be uncomfortable or unpleasant for us. This is just a part of being a mature human. And it's not that exclusivity doesn't have its place here, because no one does well on "emotional overload," and certainly it is possible to be overwhelmed by any type of emotion. Thus, we must learn to cope, and part of coping - though certainly including dealing with emotions - is also learning not to "take too much upon us, or within us." The result, is stress, and anxiety.

Okay, so hooray, I think somehow all that was just intuitive, so I hope folks aren't bored to tears, because the thing I'm really getting at ... which is the final, and most important method by which we can include/exclude ... is the most difficult of all to approach, let alone explain!

Umm ... not easy, either, when it's something I'm a good bit out of practice with. But let me make a go of it ...

I can say what it isn't. It isn't physical inclusivity, it isn't emotional inclusivity, and it isn't strictly the inclusivity of the mind, or of ideas. And yet, the closest of these, would be the ideas, which we're discussing. Some particular, on this thread, but also on a few others threads, such as the relation of Christianity to Universalism, and various individual topics, like reincarnation.

So what of them? Well ... I'm about to commit the philosophical error called begging the question! And I wish I knew another way, but the best I can do, is to try to appeal to reason, which in this case, is 100% compatible with Faith, imho. So here goes: If we agree that God is a loving being, and that love is, by its very nature, all-inclusive, then it follows that God is, by His very nature, all-inclusive in His Love for us.

This is simple enough, but it could not hurt to just stop for a moment and ponder upon such a proposition. If there's one thing that most Christians assert, almost above all else, it is the idea that God Loves us. And without meaning any disrespect, and certainly not to be oblique, let's just say I turn to my Christian friend(s) and say loudly, FU, God!

Aha, their eyes will get big, and they may look puzzled ...

... but then I make a nasty face, and I say again, FU God, FU God, FU God ... and then they are clearly frowing.

So what have I done? Did I really mean it?

No. Most certainly not, please don't think that. But, let's say it seemed real enough. I can say that, and then, with the same nasty look, turn to my Christian friend(s) and ask, Now does God love me!?!

BAH! God, go f--- yourself!!! And here, if there are particularly sensitive folk, there might even be some kind of upset, or frustration, but pretty much all the Christians I know - even at this point, if I am not mistaken, would be no less convinced ... that indeed, God still loves me. Why? What's so special about me!?!

And this could go on & on, but my point - is that even if I did mean any of all that, I think we'd all agree that God would be kind of a fickle fellow ... if a couple of FU's and a Go f- yourself was enough to interrupt the flow of love from Him to me. Perhaps it wasn't reaching me during those moments of anger & frustration. But whose fault was that? Did the love cease? Or was I just unreceptive? And let's go one step further. Does anyone believe, even for a second, that all the while I'm standing there yelling FU and Go f- yourself ... and a whole other long list of vile & wretched blasphemies ... let's say I even invent a few of my own, such is my absolute rage & malice ... is there anyone who is of the opinion - do you even have the faintest doubt within you - that maybe, just maybe, amidst all of that outburst ... God got angry with me?

Hmmm. Even on this thread, there are many folks posting, different opinions, varying beliefs, several slightly diverging views of God, and Christ, and sin & redemption ... and a funny thing just happened. Up until this point, I really felt like you were all with me. Now where'd you go?

sighhh .... Don't worry. Yes, I'm nuts. Certifiable. And I know it.

Yes, okay, but I'm not trying to waste your time. Just hoping, truly hoping, that maybe this will make sense to someone.

If so, then already, I feel that you understand Inclusivity. And nothing more need be said!

If you feel you've been left high & dry, just ask me why ...

Love & Light,

andrew

Bandit · 02-21-2006, 09:05 AM

Ok here is one. i do not include profanity in my speech. this is my belief to not curse at others or to curse at God.

i have said words before & it does not make me feel good inside. so profanity is excluded in my belief because i choose to. it would take someone purposely provoking me to anger & using words for a very long time for me to even blow up that way.

juantoo3 · 02-21-2006, 02:24 PM

Kindest Regards, Wil!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

I guess truth be known, if the other christians can accept the above into their fold that is one in the inclusive direction...now if they also can accept buddhists, taoists, muslims, jews, hindus, those of wiccan and atheists as brothers and sisters on the path to find truth...they can argue they are not exclusive...

I see...one must accept in order to be considered "inclusive?" Hmmm, does that make pagans, or whoever, that are not accepting of Christ, "exclusive?" Do I see any pot calling the kettle...

Seems to me there is a lot of reciprocal calls for acceptance.

I stand by what I have said all along, tolerance does not equal acceptance. Respectfully tolerate me (figuratively), and I will respectfully tolerate you.

Live and let live. We gotta share the planet together. Can't we all just get along. Just don't dump in my backyard.

wil · 02-21-2006, 02:44 PM

I think most of us are exclusive, that is what I tried to relate. If you don't believe what we believe, if you won't jump through our hoops, in our way you are not included....that is what you call exclusive. Saying if you don't jump through my hoops you are excluding me is illogical.

juantoo3 · 02-21-2006, 02:48 PM

I suppose I should clarify, I have long thought the most realistic component of inclusiveness is respectful tolerance. Acceptance is neither possible, as demonstrated, nor desireable. Tolerance is a workable solution, but it takes effort from both sides.

Or as Max Ehrman said in the Desiderata, paraphrased: "as much as lieth in you, without surrender, be at peace with all persons."

juantoo3 · 02-21-2006, 02:52 PM

Kindest Regards again, Wil!

Quote:

Saying if you don't jump through my hoops you are excluding me is illogical.

I am not trying to be antagonistic, but this is the way your post came across to me, as if you were asking me to jump through your hoops while disregarding mine.

Dondi · 02-21-2006, 03:03 PM

To maintain tolorance with any religion or religious beliefs is dependant of the threat level of that religion, either the physical, mental, or spiritual wellbeing of those exposed to it. If a religion engages in the sacrifice of infants, then obviously this is intolerable. But I think it comes down to degrees of tolerance based on the perception of harm. If the same religion ceases sacrificing children and rather sacrifices animals instead, then even though its not much better than the former, at least there is a greater degree of tolerance, for it is the lessor of two evils (unless you are PETA).

I know this is an extreme example, but if as a Christian, for example, if I view Buddhism as spiritually dangerous because it doesn't espouse a belief in Christ and thus I view anyone who believes in Buddhism must be lost, then I am intolerant of that religion, not because I desire to see Buddhists go to Hell, but because the preconception based on my own religious orientation leads me to believe so.

Tolerance can only work is there is agreement that there is legitimacy in another religion.

juantoo3 · 02-21-2006, 03:13 PM

Kindest Regards, Dondi!

Quote:

Tolerance can only work is there is agreement that there is legitimacy in another religion.

Indeed. Many paths up the mountain. And as you and others have pointed out, some paths are not valid. But most are.

And as Thomas so correctly pointed out, there is the risk of confusing the mountain with the path. Acceptance, as I understand it, would be confusing the path for the mountain.

lunamoth · 02-21-2006, 06:46 PM

I agree with this too, Dondi and Juan. That is how I've arrived at pluralism, as opposed to universalism. Kind of responding to two different threads here, but universalism, as already pointed out, quickly becomes intolerant itself. It's just like any religion that says "now, if you will all just see the truth we have and accept it, there will be peace and unity." And of course to do this you must discard all the "superstitions" associated with your own faith.

We do choose what we include and exclude, and while it is a unifying thing in itself to see the commonalities shared by different belief systems, to say it is good to take this from here and that from there and come up with a one-size fits-all religion would be like trying to build an airplane from things you find lying around your house.

peace,
lunamoth

Dondi · 02-21-2006, 07:00 PM

taijasi,

I get what you are saying. My feeling is that God will not love you any less if you were to tell Him off (i.e FU, go f---- yourself), though He might be upset as much as a parent is upset when their child misbehaves. A parent will geneally love his bratty child regardless of circumstance.

I will go as far as saying that when we have that streak of rebellion in us, we become quite out of tune with God. It's all wrapped up in our relationship which is guided by a universal moral code that when we stray, we end up harming ourselves and others. Afterall, we are the ones who move, not God.

I've been in the zone. Do you know what I mean? I also know when I've fallen out, and therefore need to get back "in tune" with God. Fortunately, God is willing to forgive and forget, but we have to take any rebellion seriously and endeavor to try and not repeat those mistakes (very easier said than done). When we get back to that zone, we can enjoy the manifest Love of God once more.

Dondi · 02-21-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I agree with this too, Dondi and Juan. That is how I've arrived at pluralism, as opposed to universalism. Kind of responding to two different threads here, but universalism, as already pointed out, quickly becomes intolerant itself. It's just like any religion that says "now, if you will all just see the truth we have and accept it, there will be peace and unity." And of course to do this you must discard all the "superstitions" associated with your own faith.

We do choose what we include and exclude, and while it is a unifying thing in itself to see the commonalities shared by different belief systems, to say it is good to take this from here and that from there and come up with a one-size fits-all religion would be like trying to build an airplane from things you find lying around your house.

peace,
lunamoth

Peace, lunamoth!

Can you expound on what you mean by pluralism and contrast this with universalism? I'm just unfamiliar with that term.

lunamoth · 02-21-2006, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dondi

Peace, lunamoth!

Can you expound on what you mean by pluralism and contrast this with universalism? I'm just unfamiliar with that term.

Hi Dondi, well, from what I've read in your posts you also seem to have come to pluralism. Pluralism, as I understand it, acknowledges and respects the truth found in other religions, without trying to change or reinterpret them from the outside, without condemning or belittling the beliefs that are different, even when they are drasctically different from one's own. At the same time a pluralist does not compromise their own faith and beliefs by watering them down to accomodate the differences between religions.

In my heart I may think something like "somehow, in a way I don't understand, other religions are also working through Christ and with the Holy Spirit to glorify God." I think evangelization is done by acting out God's command to love and have compassion, not preaching or worrying aobut whether someone else is "saved" of not. My understanding of a valid path is whether or not it followes the Love commandments, and what the fruits of that path are. If they point to self, or to something other than God, I am suspect. That would be my reason for rejecting that path, and, like in marriage, I don't worry about what other people are doing but just focus on my own relationship with God.

Likewise, I get rather irritated when someone from another religion or denomination tries to tell me that I, and all Christians, do not really understand Christ or what He was all about. So, I wouldn't want to do that to someone else.

Anyway, there are a few good threads about pluralism here at CR. I will try to look them up for you.

peace,
lunamoth