Christianity and The Truth

[LDNCatholic]

That’s a very good question.

From www.merriam-webster.com the first definition of “holy” expresses what I believe:

“exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness”

That sums it up…of course God alone is complete holiness.

I see, just one more question for now if you don’t mind, who is this ‘‘maybe one person’’ who is Christian that you may define as holy?

 

[Neil_LA]

I see, just one more question for now if you don’t mind, who is this ‘‘maybe one person’’ who is Christian that you may define as holy?

No problem…I went to the Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist in England in 1996 and I met one monk there who seemed to embody the kind of saintliness that one reads about in the lives of the saints.

 

[LDNCatholic]

No problem…I went to the Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist in England in 1996 and I met one monk there who seemed to embody the kind of saintliness that one reads about in the lives of the saints.

Fair enough, I don’t have any further questions (sounding like a barrister here )

Out of curiosity, as this is a very interesting subject, when you said:
Neil LA:

Again…I’m not saying that Christianity isn’t a valid path. All that I request is for each sect of Christianity to acknowledge that it is one path of many.

What exactly are you asking for? That Christians admit that other religions have truth in them, as the Church does, or are you asking that they ignore what scripture tells them about the exclusivity of the Church?

 

[Neil_LA]

What exactly are you asking for? That Christians admit that other religions have truth in them, as the Church does, or are you asking that they ignore what scripture tells them about the exclusivity of the Church?

Again, another good question. I guess you just said it.

First of all when you say “what the scripture tells…” I assume you are referring to the Christian Scripture.

To me when you say “the scripture” instead of something like “our scripture” or “my scripture” you are automatically denying the validity or authenticity of other scriptures such as “MY scripture.”

I hold my scriptures in just as much reverence as you hold your scriptures, so when it seems that you are dismissing or attacking my scriptures, I automatically get defensive…

 

[LDNCatholic]

Again, another good question. I guess you just said it.

First of all when you say “what the scripture tells…” I assume you are referring to the Christian Scripture.

To me when you say “the scripture” instead of something like “our scripture” or “my scripture” you are automatically denying the validity or authenticity of other scriptures such as “MY scripture.”

I hold my scriptures in just as much reverence as you hold your scriptures, so when it seems that you are dismissing or attacking my scriptures, I automatically get defensive…

actually I meant ‘‘the scripture’’ as in ‘‘the scripture of our religion’’. I am sorry you saw this as an offence and I apologise but it was unintentional.

But yes, our scripture hints that there is one way to salvation. Are you asking us to dismiss what they say on the nature of salvation in order to more closely fit with your theology?

 

[Neil_LA]

actually I meant ‘‘the scripture’’ as in ‘‘the scripture of our religion’’. I am sorry you saw this as an offence and I apologise but it was unintentional.

But yes, our scripture hints that there is one way to salvation. Are you asking us to dismiss what they say on the nature of salvation in order to more closely fit with your theology?

Very good discussion…Thank you.

Yes…I guess that is the crux of the issue…I guess it really is an insurmountable thing.

Christians say that their scriptures say that there is only one way to salvation.

It would be unreasonalbe for me to ask you to dismiss something that you believe is so essential to your faith.

I’m just afraid that this belief (that there is only one way of salvation) actually tends to be a hindrance to conversations between people of other faiths.

If one believes that one is in possession of the only way of salvation, it seems to me that one is automatically closed to the idea that one could receive anything of value from anybody else.

This tends to not actually foster mutual sharing, the one side that is convinced that they have everything is closed to learning anything from other views.

Does my concern seem unreasonable?

 

[LDNCatholic]

Does my concern seem unreasonable?

Hmm, I suppose there is a difference between being open to discussion and being open to adopting new beliefs.

 

[Neil_LA]

Hmm, I suppose there is a difference between being open to discussion and being open to adopting new beliefs.

I don’t see how I am asking you to adopt new beliefs.

I am just expressing my concern that this particular belief can lead to considerable difficulty when engaging with others.

Can you show me how one can hold the belief that one alone (or one’s group alone) is in possession of the one and only way of attaining salvation and still engage with others who might not share the same view?

It seems to me that one who believes that they are in sole possession of the “fulness of truth” can not help but to approach others who are not in the same possession with a certain amout of condescension and patronization.

How can one who needs nothing else possibly be open to discussion?

It seems that one who believes that they are in full possession of the truth can’t be open to the idea that the other might have anything of value.

How would saying that the other has value minimize your own beliefs? It seems to me that actually admitting that other paths might have value might actually enhance your faith.

Being convinced that I alone have the sole fulness truth of truth seems to me to be a constricted and limiting view.

Can you show me how one can hold such a view and still maintain open-mindedness?

 

[LDNCatholic]

I don’t see how I am asking you to adopt new beliefs.

I am just expressing my concern that this particular belief can lead to considerable difficulty when engaging with others.

Can you show me how one can hold the belief that one alone (or one’s group alone) is in possession of the one and only way of attaining salvation and still engage with others who might not share the same view?

It seems to me that one who believes that they are in sole possession of the “fulness of truth” can not help but to approach others who are not in the same possession with a certain amout of condescension and patronization.

How can one who needs nothing else possibly be open to discussion?

It seems that one who believes that they are in full possession of the truth can’t be open to the idea that the other might have anything of value.

How would saying that the other has value minimize your own beliefs? It seems to me that actually admitting that other paths might have value might actually enhance your faith.

Being convinced that I alone have the sole fulness truth of truth seems to me to be a constricted and limiting view.

Can you show me how one can hold such a view and still maintain open-mindedness?

I didn’t say that you were asking me to do that. I pointed out a difference.

I didn’t say I was open minded (not to say I’m not) I said I was open to discussion. I enjoy discussing faith with people, whether as an exchange or a debate, but I keep my own beliefs, which I believe to be correct. So far nobody has managed to convince me that they are incorrect.

 

[Neil_LA]

I didn’t say that you were asking me to do that. I pointed out a difference.

I didn’t say I was open minded (not to say I’m not) I said I was open to discussion. I enjoy discussing faith with people, whether as an exchange or a debate, but I keep my own beliefs, which I believe to be correct. So far nobody has managed to convince me that they are incorrect.

Ok…

Can you (or somebody) tell me how one can do anything other than point out how their belief is superior to others when one believes that they alone in the full possession of the truth?

Nobody has been able to show you that this is incorrect and nobody has been able to show me that this is is correct.

If both sides are inflexible, how can one come to understanding?

 

[LDNCatholic]

If both sides are inflexible, how can one come to understanding?

Define understanding. I understand many things that i do not agree with.

 

[Neil_LA]

Define understanding. I understand many things that i do not agree with.

I am using the word in the sense of definition 3 as found on www.merriam-webster.com

3 a: friendly or harmonious relationship b: an agreement of opinion or feeling : adjustment of differences c: a mutual agreement not formally entered into but in some degree binding on each side

Particularly in the sense of “friendly or harmonious relationship” and “adjustment of differences”

 

[LDNCatholic]

I am using the word in the sense of definition 3 as found on www.merriam-webster.com

3 a: friendly or harmonious relationship b: an agreement of opinion or feeling : adjustment of differences c: a mutual agreement not formally entered into but in some degree binding on each side

Particularly in the sense of “friendly or harmonious relationship” and “adjustment of differences”

Well I have a friendly and harmonious relationship with my best friends who are Sikh (a North Indian religion), Muslims, Hindus, there is no animosity on religious grounds. We agree on some things, we disagree on others. That which we cannot reconcile with the others beliefs we do not allow to get in the way of friendship.

 

[Neil_LA]

Well I have a friendly and harmonious relationship with my best friends who are Sikh (a North Indian religion), Muslims, Hindus, there is no animosity on religious grounds. We agree on some things, we disagree on others. That which we cannot reconcile with the others beliefs we do not allow to get in the way of friendship.

Yes…I guess you’re right…ultimately it does come down to personal relationships.

I guess I could learn to allow Catholics to believe that they alone contain the “fullness of truth,” and view it on a personal level as one of the quaint idiosyncrasies of my Catholic friends.

The problem comes when Christians try to “push” their beliefs onto others and thus invalidate what others hold dear.

You can’t deny that there are large sections of Christian faithful who are out to convert the world to their “worldview.”

 

[LDNCatholic]

Yes…I guess you’re right…ultimately it does come down to personal relationships.

I guess I could learn to allow Catholics to believe that they alone contain the “fullness of truth,” and view it on a personal level as one of the quaint idiosyncrasies of my Catholic friends.

The problem comes when Christians try to “push” their beliefs onto others and thus invalidate what others hold dear.

You can’t deny that there are large sections of Christian faithful who are out to convert the world to their “worldview.”

Yep, undeniable. I cannot lie however, if one of my non Catholic friends inquires about Catholicism and converts, I will be overjoyed. I will assist if one wishes to know the Truth (my truth as you would say) but I will not force them to learn it as that would ruin the friendship.

If that makes me seem closed minded or whatever then so be it, but I love my friends enough to tell them the Truth (again, my Truth as you might refer to it).

 

[Neil_LA]

Yep, undeniable. I cannot lie however, if one of my non Catholic friends inquires about Catholicism and converts, I will be overjoyed. I will assist if one wishes to know the Truth (my truth as you would say) but I will not force them to learn it as that would ruin the friendship.

If that makes me seem closed minded or whatever then so be it, but I love my friends enough to tell them the Truth (again, my Truth as you might refer to it).

Ok…that’s reasonable and I am sure that your Sikh friend would feel the same way if you inquired about Sikhism



Now…I was thinking about some things that I would like to bring up.

First of all I would like to express my gratitude to all my friends here on Catholic.com forums (and I say that sincerly) for being open to this discussion with me. Although there are times when it has been somewhat rough going, I am thankful that we have continued the discussion. This does indeed express a certain willingness to be open.

My next question is: Can people of different faiths find common ground to talk about God together?

Can we acknowledge that although we might differ in the particulars about how we view God there might be a common vocabulary that we can use?

Or is my view of God and your view of God so different that there is no chance of sharing?

 

[ralphinal]

My next question is: Can people of different faiths find common ground to talk about God together?

Can we acknowledge that although we might differ in the particulars about how we view God there might be a common vocabulary that we can use?

Or is my view of God and your view of God so different that there is no chance of sharing?

Yes, we can find common ground to talk about God.

There might be a common vocabulary, I am not sure. I would think so, but even within Christianity, words mean different things to different denominations. Perhaps we should start there to be able to have common ground.

I don’t think that it would prohibit sharing. What I am always afraid of is the bastardization of any faith, mine or another. I would hate to know that people took some of mine and changed it to be theirs, just as I would not force yours to comply with mine. You see it some with Islam, forcing other people’s scriptures to support their views.

 

[Neil_LA]

Yes, we can find common ground to talk about God.

There might be a common vocabulary, I am not sure. I would think so, but even within Christianity, words mean different things to different denominations. Perhaps we should start there to be able to have common ground.

I don’t think that it would prohibit sharing. What I am always afraid of is the bastardization of any faith, mine or another. I would hate to know that people took some of mine and changed it to be theirs, just as I would not force yours to comply with mine. You see it some with Islam, forcing other people’s scriptures to support their views.

Ok…lets work on a vocabulary.

But first, I would be sincerely interested in having folks let me know how they feel their faith has been “batardized.”

I ask because this is a rather strong statement. I am not denying that it has happened, I would just like some examples so I can have a clear understanding about how folks feel that their faith has been mistreated.

Thank you for indulging me.

 

[LDNCatholic]

I ask because this is a rather strong statement. I am not denying that it has happened, I would just like some examples so I can have a clear understanding about how folks feel that their faith has been mistreated.

I think Ralph means sycreticism and the like. For example Santeria mixes native African beliefs with Catholicism, both faiths have been ‘bastardised’ in the process.

Discussion is one thing, trying to find non existant links between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Hindu goddess Radha, or Siddhartha Gautama and Jesus Christ is pointless.

 

[ralphinal]

I think Ralph means sycreticism and the like. For example Santeria mixes native African beliefs with Catholicism, both faiths have been ‘bastardised’ in the process.

Discussion is one thing, trying to find non existant links between the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Hindu goddess Radha, or Siddhartha Gautama and Jesus Christ is pointless.

Exactly. No one is served if hybrids are created while more the more worthwhile “true” froms are abandoned

I do not feel that my Catholic Church has been, and I do not know enough about your faith to say that it has. I do know that people have tried to mix different faiths together. It just doesn’t seem to really have the effect that was desired.