Well said.

But, I don't think either of us should look for him to post replies on either of our websites.

Hate the sin, not the sinner. But do not let the sin flourish.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

This is a goofy post. There is *nothing* in common between what Phelps preaches and what Father Epps wrote a few weeks ago.

What do you offer in place of the exclusivist claims that any one religion may make? Are they all true? But they are mutually contradictory. If the Islamic variety of monotheism is true, then the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation (Christ was fully God and fully man) is not only false but blasphemous. If the Advaita Vedantan doctrine that all that exists is Brahman, then all varieties of monotheism are false.

One may suppose that all religious beliefs are “equally valid” only at the expense of each and every one of those beliefs themselves. If Buddhist and Baptist doctrines, which are mutually contradictory, are equally “true,” then we are no longer speaking of truth in the sense that those Buddhists and Baptists themselves intend. Perhaps we are suggesting that Buddhist and Baptist practice are equally effective at achieving some end—such as the cultivation of moral virtue—that we deem to be of the utmost importance. But this certainly implies that the actual content of those doctrines is of no consequence. And neither Buddhists nor Baptists are likely to agree. Nor should they. After all, to ask them to do so is essentially to ask them to abandon their beliefs for our more "enlightened" belief that we may call Religious Pluralism. If all religious beliefs are equally “true” or valid, then no religious belief—save Religious Pluralism itself—is true in the genuine sense of the word. Where is the tolerance in this?

For what it's worth, here's my recently published review of a book whose authors would raise similar objections to Father Epps. The last three paragraphs are of special relevance here.

Amanda Millay HUGHES, editor, Five Voices, Five Faiths: An Interfaith Primer. Cowley Publications. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005. 125 pp. \$14.95.

As the title suggests, Five Voices, Five Faiths is a collection of five essays, each introducing one of the world’s major religions and authored by a practicing adherent of that religion. In order of presentation (as well as the historical order of the founding of these religions, according to the editor), we encounter a “Hindu,” a Jew, a Zen Buddhist, a Christian, and a Muslim—Americans all—each explaining the basic tenets of their respective faiths.

The five essays vary in their quality and depth of insight into the respective religions. Given the fact that each author was allotted only twenty pages to introduce a major world religion, one must expect the essays to be selective and limited with regard to their subject matter. The brevity, combined with each author’s pluralistic outlook—a sort of rush to non-judgment as it were—lends itself to a misleading presentation of the views.

Professor Anantanand Rambachan’s essay on “Hinduism” blurs important distinctions among religious traditions that are often given this designation. Indeed, the reader comes away with the impression that Hindus are committed to a sort of panentheism, as he cites a hymn in the Rg Veda that “states that while God pervades the universe by a fourth of God’s being, three-fourths remain beyond it” (p. 3). He fails to tell his readers that he himself is an adherent of Advaita Vedanta, Shankara’s 9th century philosophy of absolute non-dualism. On Advaita, Brahman is the only existing being, so that the observable world of samsara around us is actually an illusion due to avidya or ignorance. Further, Brahman is literally “propertyless” according to Advaita Vedanta, so that no properties—from personhood to power to goodness—apply to “him.” The Advaitan concept of Brahman is a far cry from any theistic conception of God, and readers may be misled by the theistic overtones of Professor Rambachan’s use of “God” to refer to Brahman. Though the Hindu doctrine of ishtadeva and the corresponding doctrine of diverse margas or “approved ways” “has enabled Hindus to think of the world’s religions in complementary and not exclusive ways” (p. 7), the Absolute Monism of Rambachan’s own view entails that, while theistic belief may be instrumental as a stepping stone to the truth of Brahman, it is little more than a useful fiction.

Yaakov Ariel’s essay on Judaism emphasizes Jewish culture and practice and decidedly de-emphasizes doctrine. We learn something of Hannukah and Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Purim, and of the cultural shift from the priestly class to a lay priesthood, from temple to synagogue, but precious little about what Jews believe about the Creator—or the Messiah.

Patricia Phelan tells us something of the Buddha’s early life and original teachings, including the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. The latter, with its practical emphasis, gets the most attention, and she steers clear of the
metaphysical implications of, say, the Buddhist doctrines of “dependent origination” and its corollaries of anitya (impermanence) and anatman (no-self). After nodding in the direction of the other Buddhist traditions of Theravada and Mahayana, she settles into a discussion of her own Zen practice.

Editor Amanda Millay Hughes, an Episcopalian, emphasizes the confessional nature of Christianity, and opens her essay with a statement and brief exposition of the Nicene Creed. She nicely articulates an orthodox account of such doctrines as the Trinity and Incarnation, and, importantly given this interfaith context, the ontological transcendence of God (“God is fundamentally other than any created thing or being,” p. 75). She affirms the universality of sin and the need for forgiveness, but says little to nothing about the Atonement itself. She does, however, offer the exclusivist claim that “Christians believe that all human life needs the redemptive action of God in Christ Jesus” (p. 79). This does not sit well with the pluralist motivation behind this project, as one of her collaborators points out in the Q&A section. Rambachan asks, “How do you relate [this claim] with the reality of different religions?” (p. 88). Her reply is evasive. She notes that exclusivist thinking engenders “dark judgments about other religions” and confesses,“it is hard to give a definitive answer to your question” (p. 88). The non-definitive answer that follows urges the need for love and the universal “desire to live in harmony,” and concludes with an appeal to “mystery.” I’ll return to her dilemma momentarily.

Amy Nelson, a self-described “white, educated, American-born” convert to Islam, explains the basic tenets of her faith. Allah has no cohorts, and “there is no god but Allah” is the cornerstone of Muslim faith. She explains the exalted view that Muslims take of Mohammed and of the Q’uran. And we learn something of the five pillars of Islam: monotheistic belief itself, prayer, fasting, alms, pilgrimage. Many post-911 readers may hope to learn whether Islam is, after all, a peaceful religion. But for a couple of oblique references to “popular western conceptions” (p. 111) of Islam, little to nothing is said in either the essay or the Q&A section to dispel the alleged misconceptions.

Five Voice, Five Faiths is motivated by the desire to “live amicably” with those whose beliefs are different from one’s own, to “live with and value fundamental differences” (p. xiv), and to find “common ground” for interfaith dialogue (p. xiii). These are noble aspirations, all, I suppose. But the concerns go beyond a desire for harmonious co-existence. We are told that mere “tolerant forbearance” implies (arrogantly, I take it) that one is in a “position of privilege” that is not enjoyed by the other. Indeed, we are to avoid “unproductive dogmatic debate” (p. xv) and are urged to “do more than tolerate difference—we can honor it as part of the richness of human experience” (p. xiv). “Celebrate diversity,” as they say. Ms. Millay Hughes quotes approvingly from an essay on religious pluralism by a Christian pastor who bubbles that “the Christian calling allows him to sing his song to Jesus ‘with abandon …without speaking negatively about others’” (p. xvi). Though she once subscribed to the mandate to make disciples of all people (p. xvii), now, “as a middle-aged woman,” she “reflects more deeply” on Jesus’ “new commandment” to love one another. Her advice to the adherents of the different traditions these days is “hold onto the truths you have received” (p. xviii). One might draw the conclusion that somehow the Great Commission and this “new commandment” are mutually at odds. One might also be a child of the times.

Ms. Millay Hughes’ dilemma in attempting to answer Professor Rambachan’s question is symptomatic of the pluralistic perspective that motivates projects such as Five Voices, Five Faiths. She wishes to affirm her own Christian faith while commending other competing traditions, as “sacred truths.” She wishes to “sing her song to Jesus without speaking negatively of others.” Her trouble arises from a simple point of logic. To believe something just is to believe that it is true. And to believe that it is true entails believing that its denial is false. The Islamic version of monotheism requires that the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation is not only false but blasphemous. The Advaita Vedantan doctrine of Nirguna Brahman entails the falseness of all varieties of monotheism. There just is no sense in which all of these competing doctrines may be said to be “true”—not in a way that does full justice to the sense in which actual believers (as opposed to Religious Studies scholars) take their doctrines to be true. To believe anything is to believe that lots of other things—even doctrines that are cherished by fine people—are false. If tolerance means never thinking that those cherished beliefs of others are false, then, necessarily, no one is ever tolerant.

I do not recommend Five Voices, Five Faiths as a text for the college classroom—especially at the Christian college. Win Corduan’s Neighboring Faiths (InterVarsity, 1998) is much more thorough in its exploration of the various traditions, is even-handed despite being written by a Christian philosopher, and lacks the confused pluralistic outlook of the present book. Harold Netland’s Encountering Religious Pluralism (InterVarsity, 2001) written by a former student of Professor John Hick, is a healthy antidote to the perspective of Five Voices, and is a fine text for the classroom. Scholars who wish to understand the perspective of Religious Pluralism itself should bypass Five Voices and go directly to Professor Hick’s An Interpretation of Religion (Yale, 2005).

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

It appears to me that the similarity mentioned between these two is not the details mentioned but the fact that it is felt necessary to prohibit others, if possible, from having their own faith, even if different. I think the Creator can understand all---even if different and have direct conflicts. Otherwise we are doomed to 10,000 more years of stupid wars over religion. Everything is in the language used.

It appears to me that the similarity mentioned between these two is not the details mentioned but the fact that it is felt necessary to prohibit others, if possible, from having their own faith, even if different.

No one has prohibited anyone from having their own faith, here.

What has been said is that in that right to have your own faith that does not mean God is going to accept your own faith.

In fact, God has said he will not accept your god. He expects you to accept him, on his terms.

If you don't understand that logic, and what has been said, that is something you will answer to him for. Not me.

I think the Creator can understand all---even if different and have direct conflicts.

And here you exemplify the issue.

You are demanding what you think in your terms in your logic and so on. Not one grain of effort to find out what God wants on his terms and in his logic.

Thus, shove the literal words of the Bible aside. Disregard it completely.

Do not make any effort to side by side exmaine religions to see they have no compatibility and demand very different things.

Just fall back on your logic and desires to determine what God is and wants.

Don't test to find the truth. Just create your own god and declare him the One God.

Otherwise we are doomed to 10,000 more years of stupid wars over religion.

No. This old earth will not be around another 10,000 years. In fact, it is going to change very drastically, as the Bible puts it, before the generation that sees the restoration of Israel passes away.

Even the Muslims see the time ripening for the End Times. But, gee, in their vision they slaughter all the Jews, Christians and other no Muslims.

Everything is in the language used.

And there is nothing in common between any of the Holy Books. Nothing.

Not when you get into meanings and literal statements.

Up to you to pick what your believe. Your right that I will not deny. But your responsibility for the consequences as well.

Amazing how man thinks he is wise enough to figure out God on his terns, his logic and his rationale alone. Which is what you are doing.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Please explain what you mean by "[prohibiting] others, if possible, from having their own faith." What, exactly, has Father Epps or anyone like him done that amounts to this?

Suppose I say to you, "I'm sorry, but I think that what you believe is mistaken and here's why...." Am I attempting to "prohibit" you from "having your own faith"?

Before you reply, consider: If you think I am mistaken and you are about to correct me, then either you are about to attempt to "prohibit" me from believing as I wish, or you tacitly agree that there is nothing wrong with thinking and saying that what someone else believes is mistaken.

Come on, people. THINK a bit instead of spouting off the nonsense views that you have absorbed from the culture around you.

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Agree. This is an illogical and baseless accusation. And one founded in self desire, not evidence.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Interesting the timing. But here is a post I made on Christian Talk Zone, just yesterday, in the Islam Forum, concerning Islam and its view of Christianity.

Please remember this was posted via a wysiwyg editor that included coding that will not show in the editor here properly.

Note the point is that, in agreement with Muddle's post, it is impossible to reconcile different religions with each other without loosing the teachings and beliefs of each religion.

And most assuredly you cannot reconcile the hatred of Christianity as shown in the Quoran.

Notable Quoran Sura Readings

Quote:
4.56: (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

They make us enter fire.

Quote:

3.118: O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people; they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.

5.51: O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

4.144: O you who believe! do not take the unbelievers for friends rather than the believers; do you desire that you should give to Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?

3.28: Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.

9.23: O you who believe! do not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief; and whoever of you takes them for a guardian, these it is that are the unjust.

To have non-Muslims for friends is to share their fate.

Quote:
9.123: O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

Fight non-Muslims.

Quote:
4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.

Drive out non-Muslims and kill any who try to return.

Quote:
9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Kill and take captive non-believers. Only spare those who convert.

Quote:
9.29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Conquer non-Muslims and force them acknowledge they are inferior and pay tribute.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

However, I don't think it has been a month since Mr. Epps was saying similar things in a column about all of the world's people who don't practice christianity, 3/4 of the world's population.

He did not say the same thing.

But, I will not put words in Epp's mouth. I will speak for Biblical Christianity, in general. Not everyone who calls themselves Christian. But Biblical literalist Christians.

People have a choice in this life, as regards religion. That is Biblical.

God loves everyone and sent Christ as a way for everyone to be with him. That is Biblical.

People do not have a right to create their own gods and expect God to embrace them. That is Biblical.

While God gave us all freewill, he did not grant us freewill without bounds. He did set limits.

Prior to Noah, people got worse and and worse until the crossed the line. God wiped out the world, except for 8 people.

Sodom and Gomorrah, with the cities of the valley around them, crossed the line. They were destroyed.

God kept Israel in captivity, in Egypt, for generations before giving them the Promised Land. Why? Because God would not destroy those in the Land until they crossed the line.

Today, as per the Bible, the world as a whole, is rapidly getting close to that line. When it does cross it, the Rapture will occur, and the Tribulation Period, as shown in Daniel, Revelation and a number of other books, holding End Time prophecies, will happen.

God will destroy 2/3 of the world's population, saving the remaining 1/3 to enter the Millennial Kingdom under Christ.

In all these cases, God's people were/will be crushed and exterminated by the world. Which God does not tolerate, on an absolute scale.

It is a death penalty to be Christian in Islamic society, even if areas do not enforce it. To be Christian in the EU is illegal. Canada has laws oppressing Biblical Christians. The UN has passed laws calling Christianity cultural genocide. And Christians are loosing rights in the US rapidly.

God is loving and merciful, as shown by the Second Person of the Trinity becoming human and dying for us.

But God is also Just. And Just says those deserving of death and condemnation will be so condemned.

The problem with the world is they don't see their own disasterous condition. People think they are Good, in and of themselves. They think they are deserving of Heaven, just as they are. They are unrepentent of what they do.

Many in the world practice amoralism or situational ethics. Meaning they excuse themselves for what they are and do.

People getting very angry, over what I have said here, just proves their issues of pride and self justification.

But God does not respect how you think it should be. He is God and expects you to respect how he says it should be.

God has given us so much freedom, in our lives. And so much room to error and still spend eternity with him. But, as he says, there is a limit to his patience and tolerance. And when it ends, you will be judged on your actions and decisions, according to his expectations and revealtions to you.

Not a message many want to hear. Not an message many Christians are even willing to vocalize, even when they believe it.

But, your questions and statements deserve answers. You deserve to be answered.

I simply don't follow such logic, and to write it off as faith doesn't do anything for all of those billions left out---and why would God want all of them left out?

The logic is freewill choice. No one is being written off by God or real Christians. They are writing themselves off.

God does not want them left out. His door is wide open. But there are billions who refuse to enter that open door.

One day that door will close. And even then, in the Lake for Eternity, they will still be unwilling to bow to God. They will continue to believe in and follow themselves.

Ask yourself two questions:
Do you have the right to tell God how he has to conduct himself and what you feel are reasonable expectations? Or, does he have the right to tell you?
Should God stand by while his people are crushed and exterminated by the world?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I assure you that if God ever told me anything I would obey. As to obeying the bible, as if it were God, most of us do most of the time if we were indoctrinated that way earlier, but do please remember that our religious "leaders" of very old threw out all the parts of the "bible" they didn't like or that conflicted. More of the old Greeks texts are found all of the time. I know the theory christian preachers are taught that "people" must have something in which to have "faith" or they will leave the church or quit supporting it monetarily. None of this is a problem with me, however my faith is in the Creator, not preachers or papers, but I simply do not condemn most of the people of the world, don't need to do so.

I assure you that if God ever told me anything I would obey.

He has. You won't listen.

As to obeying the bible, as if it were God,

It is God's revelation. Thus it is him speaking through it.

most of us do most of the time if we were indoctrinated that way earlier,

Wrong. Many of the worst at hating God grew up in Bible families. And people most assuredly do not obey the Bible most of the time due to their sin natures.

but do please remember that our religious "leaders" of very old threw out all the parts of the "bible" they didn't like or that conflicted.

Wrong. You are biting into the Gnostic arguments. Or the arguments of those out to discredit the Bible.

Those books were not written contemporary to the Apostles nor by the Apostles. The very earliest were written around 120 AD with the bulk in the 200s to 300s.

More of the old Greeks texts are found all of the time.

Indeed they are. You find they support the Bible or are deliberate creations well after the claimed times. Such as the Gospel of Judas, Thomas, Enoch and on and on.

I know the theory christian preachers are taught that "people" must have something in which to have "faith" or they will leave the church or quit supporting it monetarily.

Everyone has faith in something. That is not theory, but fact.

You have faith in you as your Bible.

None of this is a problem with me, however my faith is in the Creator, not preachers or papers, but I simply do not condemn most of the people of the world, don't need to do so.

And your source of information about the Creator is..... you?

If I am wrong, then tell me the God revealed source of your knowledge about him. I thought I had, at a minimum, studied all the religious systems of the world. And tested their claims for a basis of God given revelation, finding only the Bible stood up to testing.

What is this source that makes you so sure of your beliefs? Tell me.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Hey High One. Kind of like you don't condemn Rush, Hannity and the rest of us as you described us in an earlier post in such a nasty fashion? You sure felt the need to condemn 5 minutes ago.

Most excellent point!

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

You Bushies are all the same. When you are right and the enemy is attacking you one has to fight back. We really desire peace but are forced to take a stand against the right wing republicans. Highgreen and those of us like him unfortuanalely are in a battle agains evil. And you are teh evil ones. Hang in there Highgreen. I'm behind you.

*** Bush Lied - People Died ***

You "two" sure do like to rile folks up.