How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[eliasaph99]

Are you kidding? Imperialism and colonization destroyed civilizations that those committing the sins had no business messing with. Oh sure, it was all done in the name of God, to justify it on religious grounds, but it was outrightly wrong none the less.

This is historically inaccurate. To be sure, there were some kings or queens who may have expanded their empires thinking they would exted the Faith. But such examples are few and far between.

Most of colonization was simply a power play by nations to increase their own wealth and military strength. It had very little to do with religion.

Moreover, it is wrong to focus on Europe and claim that they were the only peoples who had ever done such a thing. As the other poster said, people are people.

People groups have been conquering their neighbors and plundering them since the dawn of mankind. Europe made some technological leaps that let them plunder and conquer around the globe, but it was not some radical shift in human behavior. This was always done.

The radical shift in human behavior is that our Christian religion brought us to the realization that what we had done was wrong. This has never happened before. I assure you, the Romans never felt the smallest remorse about plowing salt into the ground at Carthage thereby wiping out an entire civilization, or about demolishing the Jewish Temple and taking all the gold back to Rome.

The Zulu eradicated neighboring tribes and built an empire in Southern Africa. The Mongols swept across all of Asia, establishing one of the largest empires the world has ever seen and exacted tribute from everyone. I assure you, their civilization never searched its conscience to see if what they had done was OK. Their religions confirmed that what they had done was right.

Only the light of Christ has illumined our civilization to see that it shouldn’t eradicate other cultures at will for its own enrichment. This is the new thing.

The uneasiness you feel about our past is a new thing in the world. Never seen until Christianity brought it to light.

 

[Robert902]

The longer I study the Bible, the more it becomes evident to me that this is no ordinary book. The Bible is an intricate masterpiece and stands on its own. God owes an explanation to no one.
There is [one] mediator between God and man, and that is the Christ Jesus. So only one mediator excludes; Muhammed, Buddah, Joseph Smith, The Watchtower and Tract Society etc.
Liberalism is partially to blame for the false notion that there are few if any absolutes. Mathematics is full of absolutes. Imagine the student telling his teacher that he was narrow minded, and didn’t like the fact that he would accept only one answer to 2x2=4.

 

[eliasaph99]

Everything you just wrote could’ve been written by a Buddhist. So what’s the point?

I have studied Buddhism and Hinduism.

Both of them are extremely laudable. (Although there are some sects of Hinduism that are very unusual and probably not as laudable as Hinduism as a whole.) They contain extremely valuable insight into human nature and the human condition.

However, if a strong Catholic apologist were to debate a Hindu or Buddhist apologist, there is no doubt in my mind who would win.

They simply are not as reasonable as Catholicism. The views of the religions simply don’t agree with reality to the extent that Catholicism does.

Please study them yourself and study Catholicism. Read Aquinas and the rigorous logical support he gives to our beliefs then try to find his counterpart among the Buddhists. It’s just not there.

 

[Everyman]

This is historically inaccurate. To be sure, there were some kings or queens who may have expanded their empires thinking they would exted the Faith. But such examples are few and far between.

Most of colonization was simply a power play by nations to increase their own wealth and military strength. It had very little to do with religion.

Moreover, it is wrong to focus on Europe and claim that they were the only peoples who had ever done such a thing. As the other poster said, people are people.

People groups have been conquering their neighbors and plundering them since the dawn of mankind. Europe made some technological leaps that let them plunder and conquer around the globe, but it was not some radical shift in human behavior. This was always done.

The radical shift in human behavior is that our Christian religion brought us to the realization that what we had done was wrong. This has never happened before. I assure you, the Romans never felt the smallest remorse about plowing salt into the ground at Carthage thereby wiping out an entire civilization, or about demolishing the Jewish Temple and taking all the gold back to Rome.

The Zulu eradicated neighboring tribes and built an empire in Southern Africa. The Mongols swept across all of Asia, establishing one of the largest empires the world has ever seen and exacted tribute from everyone. I assure you, their civilization never searched its conscience to see if what they had done was OK. Their religions confirmed that what they had done was right.

Only the light of Christ has illumined our civilization to see that it shouldn’t eradicate other cultures at will for its own enrichment. This is the new thing.

The uneasiness you feel about our past is a new thing in the world. Never seen until Christianity brought it to light.

I realize it wasn’t only the Christians that did this. Sure, other non-Christian cultures have taken over others. But that’s not really the point, is it? And, just so you know, you’ve really down-played the role Europeans played in wiping out the original natives of America. Columbus and his crew didn’t leave one single inhabitant on the island og Cuba. Those first peoples just plain don’t exist anymore. And ole Chris was a Fransiscan tertiary, even.

Now, the point you make regarding these sins being brought to light is an interesting one. I think our day and age has certainly brought all these atrocities to light, but was Christianity that is responsible for this? I’m not so sure.

 

[eliasaph99]

I realize it wasn’t only the Christians that did this. Sure, other non-Christian cultures have taken over others. But that’s not really the point, is it? And, just so you know, you’ve really down-played the role Europeans played in wiping out the original natives of America. Columbus and his crew didn’t leave one single inhabitant on the island og Cuba. Those first peoples just plain don’t exist anymore. And ole Chris was a Fransiscan tertiary, even.

Now, the point you make regarding these sins being brought to light is an interesting one. I think our day and age has certainly brought all these atrocities to light, but was Christianity that is responsible for this? I’m not so sure.

I haven’t downplayed anything. I didn’t mention those things. I was simply pointing out that it is not as if the whole world had existed peacefully until the Europeans decided to start some trouble. Men have killed men since the dawn of time. In case you forgot, one of the earliest stories in the Bible is Cain killing Abel. Ever since then, its been death and destruction.

However, it is Christianity that teaches that the life of every man is valuable. That is where our collective understanding of the wrong we have done comes from. Other religions don’t teach this.

Even if something were brought to light by an atheist who was raised in our culture, that individual has been permeated by the ethic of our culture which is the Catholic ethic. It has been the background of all European derived cultures for almost two-thousand years. Our understanding of it has deepened significantly over time to the point where we now see what wrong we have perpetrated. But we are only aware of it because of the Catholic ethic.

 

[SedesDomi]

Please study them yourself and study Catholicism. Read Aquinas and the rigorous logical support he gives to our beliefs then try to find his counterpart among the Buddhists. It’s just not there.

Oh, I would disagree. Such counterparts are there. Whether you agree with their conclusions (I’m sure you don’t), is another matter.

 

[palmas85]

Look, I know all this jargon. But it ignores my question: How can I know that this stuff is true? What about all the other great wisdom traditions of the world? Only partial truths, if that? How can we know!?!

It’s all about faith, huh?

It is written that faith is a gift. But if you lose it, does that make God an Indian giver?

Christ said “No man comes to the Father except through Me”

There must have been a reason He said it.

 

[SedesDomi]

Christ said “No man comes to the Father except through Me”

Who is to say that Christ did not also (in some mysterious way) inspire peoples in India, China, Africa, and Native America?

As Jesus said, in John 10:15-16:

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

 

[CollegeKid]

I just want to say that I respect the difficulties you’re now having; I’ve often wrestled with similar questions. For some of my questions I think I’ve begun to see some semblance of an answer, for others I still don’t know. I guess I would just like to make a few points for you to think about.

1. As for the Catholic Faith being limited to only select groups of people and countries and only now being widespread in the age of globalization, try to remember that missionaries have been spreading it all over the world since before this era, indeed since Pentecost. The Catholic Church has always strove to be just what its name says it is and what Christ called it to be: Universal.
2. As for other religions having curious similarities to Catholicism, I’ll open with a quote from Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism:

“…we should expect the true religion to be a fulfillment of, but not a complete contradiction of, mankind’s earlier stabs at religious truth. After all, each ancient had something true in it, even if what was true was buried under much that was false and even pernicious. On the positive side, ancient religions were remote preparations for Christ’s coming, which occurred in the “fullness of time”, when mankind had taken itself about as far as it could go on its own.
We should expect that the religion that is the fullness of truth, coming in the “fullness of time”, would incorporate the good points of earlier religions while rejecting their errors. Conversely, a religion that rejected not only errors, but also the good points, of earlier religions would seem to be incomplete, as though it went too far in trying to remain pure, as though it threw out more than just the bathwater.”

This excerpt has always resonated with what I believe to be true because it makes sense on a human level, and is a step in the direction of answering the claim of relativism, that since many people believe many things about moral truth and religion, philosophy, whatever, none of the claimants have a monopoly on the absolute truth but each person’s version is fine if it works for them. Would you say that a person’s version of the truth was fine if “what works for them” meant leaking anthrax into a city water supply? No. Even if you weren’t among those harmed by the anthrax, you would still know in your heart that the terrorist’s actions were evil, and you would revile them.

If you believe in God, then it is logical to believe that He wants to communicate the truth to his creation, namely, human beings. Otherwise, why would He bother to create us? So that we could live lives marked by unending confusion and distress over whether or not we have the truth? Would He just give us a minimalist understanding of some of the basics of right and wrong and leave us with nothing else? Nothing to believe about Him?

It makes sense that He would create a visible, juridicial Church with one earthly head so that within that religion there is no confusion as to what is religious truth and what is heresy. If we look at all the major religious organizations on earth that have one head at the top and one faith, we see that the oldest and, let’s be honest, only one whose claim to divine institution that even skeptics might take seriously is the Catholic Church.

Can I, for myself, make this claim about Islam? No. The main reason? There is no one to speak for all of Islam. It has different versions of religious truth but no overarching leader, listened to by a vast majority of Muslims, to say what is a true religious belief and what is not.

What about Buddhism? Well since, as I understand it, Buddhism denies the existence of a supernatural, transcendent God, it is just another system of beliefs about the universal truths of life. No doubt it has some things right, but plenty of self-help books get things right too.

If you believe in any religious truth as being a dogma, that is, exactly as stated and completely non-negotiable and with certainty will not ever change, then I think you should look for the most dogmatic religion out there whose claim to divine foundation you can take seriously. What fits this description for many millions of Catholics, including myself? Our Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church, among major world religions, is the only one who claims to be absolutely Infallible in teaching on matters of faith and morals. And She is basically the only one who gets labeled as diabolical by every brand of humanity, from fundamentalist firebrands to liberal social workers in the heart of New York City, and communists, fascists, nihlists, AIDS victims advocates who favor artifical contraception, etc. She is either diabolical, or God’s one, true Church.

 

[CollegeKid]

At the end of the day, I believe in the totality of the Catholic Faith by the grace of God. I believe because the Church, in her venerable, two-thousand-year history towers above the rest, because Her founder, Jesus Christ, towers above the rest. What other founder of a (major) world religion transcends His own religion to the point that even other religions consider Him to be one of the greatest prophets that ever walked the face of the earth? What other founder of a major world religion sent out 12 apostles, known to this very day 2000 years later, all of whom taught that He was physically resurrected from the dead, body and soul, a teaching that 11 of those 12 apostles went to their deaths as martyrs witnessing to?

There are times when I doubt, even seriously, but everybody goes through these troubles. It doesn’t mean you’ve lost your faith, and long as you continue to make that “fundamental Yes” to God with your whole being, even if at times it seems nearly impossible to have intellectual belief in your faith.

I hope that at least some of this was helpful. If not, I apologize for wasting your time.

 

[Petergee]

I realize it wasn’t only the Christians that did this. Sure, other non-Christian cultures have taken over others. But that’s not really the point, is it? And, just so you know, you’ve really down-played the role Europeans played in wiping out the original natives of America. Columbus and his crew didn’t leave one single inhabitant on the island og Cuba. Those first peoples just plain don’t exist anymore. And ole Chris was a Fransiscan tertiary, even.

Now, the point you make regarding these sins being brought to light is an interesting one. I think our day and age has certainly brought all these atrocities to light, but was Christianity that is responsible for this? I’m not so sure.

As it in the areas settled predominantly by protestants that Native Americans have come closest to being completely wiped out, it’s hard to see why you think that “Catholicism especially) is responsible for so many of the things I abhor in life (like industrialism, imperialism, colonization, “bigness,” etc.)” In most areas settled by Catholics, Native American races and their cultures are alive and thriving. The Popes and bishops have frequently done their best to stop the evils of industrialism, imperialism, colonization, “bigness,” etc, not to mention slavery. And not just recently but right back to Columbus’ time and before. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that just because someone calls himself a Christian, everything he does is in conformity with Christian doctrine or even directed by the Church.

Look up the history of Paraguay where Jesuits set up a successful Native American state in opposition to the colonialism of greedy European governments and furtune-hunters. In fact the main reason there was so much opposition to the Jesuits was because, being sworn to obey the Pope rather than their national governments, they stood in the way of colonialism.

The natives of Cuba, like many island communities which had been isolated for centuries, had no immunity to diseases which were common and trivial in the outside world. That is the basic reason their race (at least in its “pure” form) died out, although the (relatively few) deliberate murders of Cubans by Europeans didn’t help. But its nonsense to suggest Columbus and his crew were responsible. There were still Cubans living long after Columbus had completed all his voyages and died. And though many of his men and those who followed were greedy enough to kill to obtain wealth, Columbus himself seems to have been a sincere Christian who wanted to spread the Gospel to the Americans, not kill them.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

And to add on to Petergee:

French Jesuits gave the Vietnamese their alphabet (alone among Asian languages) and translated the Bible into that new written form.

Catholic saints and missionaries did it for the Gaulish, Wentish, Germanic, Slavic (cyrillic!), Russian, Slovak, Romani, Iberian, Scandia and Gaelic tribes.

Where ever the Gospel was preached, scripture became the first books written and disseminated in that culture.

Everyman, I like the Chaucerian quote, but, did you start this posting AFTER reading ‘Germs and Steel’ and watching “Apocalypto” or “The Missionary?” Inquiring minds and all that…

 

[Trad_Catholic_1]

In all my life, I never thought I would be one to utter the question of how I can claim my faith to be the only true one. I mean, I’ve always been dogmatic and viewed others’ beliefs as wrong-headed. But now I don’t know.

I was raised in a fundamantalist, evangelical atmosphere, came to be a Calvinist as a young adult, and recently joined the Catholic Church after a three-year study of it. Interestingly, after I moved from one position to another, I suddenly saw those who believed like I use to as inferior.

Maybe I’m just a jerk.

But I think there’s more at stake than just that. I’m beginning to think this: before globalization, we were all relatively tucked away in our cultural corners safely with our own traditions. We knew there were those that believed differently than us, we came into contact with them on occasion, but they were wrong in what they believed. And we were right. I mean, it’s how we were all raised.

But now, we are a global society, without the luxury of being cut off from these other cultures. And it’s becoming harder and harder to resist the temptation of not seeing similarities between, say, the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of Christ. And it’s becoming harder to reconcile the teachings of Paul with the teachings of Christ.

Point is, claiming dogmatically that mine is the exclusive, true faith is looking pretty narrow and meaningless in this small world of ours. What do we do?

The Catholic faith has a centuries long history of interacting with all sorts of cultures and religions with missions and the like, some still living, some long dead, long before globalisation became the norm. The Catholic Church has never denied there are no similarities between say, the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of Christ. But the teachings of Christ remain a challenge to Buddha and Buddhism. It’s not a question of cultural imperialism or such like, but rather a question of logic. What does Buddhism believe and why does the Catholic Church believe that it alone is the One True Faith? It must be shown to be logically the case in order for anyone to either accept or reject the Church’s teaching on the matter.

Paul

 

[curious35]

The non-Christian faiths may share some general similarities wiih Christianity, perhaps in the sense that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. I’ve always felt that the Holy Spirit makes us yearn for truth, and if people study each long enough, only Christianity forms a unifying concept in the mind of the believer. Grace comes from God. Faith comes to us before we reflect it back to God, in my opinion.

Mankind eventually realizes the stain and stench that sin causes within the human heart. Some religions try to deal with sin, but knowing that Perfect Sinlessness came out of eternity to live among us and to be killed - by all of us! Then is resurrected! No other faith even comes near to explaining such a sacrifice, such a promise of what’s to come, and assurance that the world can only kill your body during this flicker of a life.

Steve in Hoptown
Kelly & Lana’s friend

 

[Pug]

And it’s becoming harder to reconcile the teachings of Paul with the teachings of Christ.

God is the author of scripture, so it can still be done. What about globalism is making it more difficult for the average person to do that particular task?

I think that in these days it is obvious why Jesus established an authoritative Church.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

Point is, claiming dogmatically that mine is the exclusive, true faith is looking pretty narrow and meaningless in this small world of ours. What do we do?

Just like you I am a convert into this great Catholic Church, I was raised southern baptist, and prior to my conversion became very fundamental and very anti-catholic. But again congrats on your own personal conversion.

I would also like to point out that we rely on the Church to hold the keys to our infallible truth of our Christian Faith.

When in doubt look back at the structure Jesus founded for us.

1. Jesus picked only 12 - to be His Apostles, yet he had hundreds of Disciples

So lets explore the difference:

Jesus taught the 12 behind closed doors, gave them the power to forgive and retain sin here on earth, they were the ones who partook in the Last Supper, told them to go and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and changed one of their names from Simon to Peter which he refers to the Rock of the Church and we call our 1st Pope giving order to the 12.

Basically these 12 were the leaders of the Church, taught and minstered through this Church leadership, and when one of the 12 went down the wrong road they decided to elect another 12th to carry on as they started and as they went out to build this “Catholic” Church they carried on this tradition of laying on the hands to make new local leaders and so forth…

Then you have all of the Disciples, they were the folowers of Christ, or the early Christians. They worked hard for him, they were eye witnesses to His existence and shared their own personal testimony vs the infallible teaching of the Church. Now not all of them continued in their faith, remember when Jesus was telling all of those Christians or Disciples that Trully Trully this bread is my flesh and this Trully Trully this drink is my blood and who ever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have eternal life, alot of those christians went back to their own ways.

The bottom line is our foundation is Rock solid and the gates of hell will never previal against His Church.

Also take a look at the Didache greek Koinne for Teacher, which was written by the Apostles in the 1st century whom were taught not by your current Priest or former fundamental minister but by Jesus Christ himself and compare those truths and values by todays Catholic Doctrine and that narrow and meaningless small world you refer to might not be so meaningless after all.

 

[Texan_in_DC]

It is my understanding that you are not arguing the existence of God, or the historical life of Jesus Christ?

But you are struggling with Religion, especially within the Christian faith because every church a religion alike claim truth.

If this is true again study the early church from a history perspective and then compare it to the other religions that claim the truth and I believe you will find once again that no other protestant church can hold water to our 2000 year history of the Catholic Church and to the other world religions there is very little contradiction.

 

[Sixtus]

mean, I’ve always been dogmatic and viewed others’ beliefs as wrong-headed.

We Catholics are often criticised by non-religious social groups for being ‘ethnocentric’. Most social groups perceive themselves this way so it is hardly surprising that we do too.

The difference is that we not only believe it but perhaps more unusually, can cite tangible evidence for so thinking.

But, that does not give us an excuse to be arrogant. We must never assume we have access to the full picture. That other’s views and believes just because they are different to our own, are wrong. The Catholic Church does not own God. He is not in our service. We must never forget who is the God and who is the creature!

I am sure that God reveals Himself to others in whatever way He pleases. Surely it is our duty as Catholics to listen and discern what God is saying to others. He may have revealed HImself to them in ways that only their culture could comprehend. We do not have the monopoly on God’s revelation.Jesus did say ‘there are many rooms in my Fathers house, it if were not so, I would have told you so’. So who else is in His house who is not in our culture or even our galaxy?

If we believe that God has revealed HImself to us, then our response should always be one of humility not only of what He has said, but of His right to communicate with whosoever He choses.

 

[Everyman]

And to add on to Petergee:

French Jesuits gave the Vietnamese their alphabet (alone among Asian languages) and translated the Bible into that new written form.

Catholic saints and missionaries did it for the Gaulish, Wentish, Germanic, Slavic (cyrillic!), Russian, Slovak, Romani, Iberian, Scandia and Gaelic tribes.

Where ever the Gospel was preached, scripture became the first books written and disseminated in that culture.

Everyman, I like the Chaucerian quote, but, did you start this posting AFTER reading ‘Germs and Steel’ and watching “Apocalypto” or “The Missionary?” Inquiring minds and all that…

All the work you mention the Catholics did is kinda irrelevant if not actually destructive. An alphabet? What’s so intrinsically good about that? So they can read the Bible? Well, some may think that merely ripped those people from any sense of rootedness in their own tradition.

And no, I have not touched any of the references you asked about.

 

[Pug]

Surely it is our **duty **as Catholics to listen and discern what God is saying to others.

I’m not sure I know what you mean. I don’t feel, for example, that I am obligated to listen and discern whatever it was that God might have said at Fatima, and that is a “Catholic” thing. In a specific instance I might be, if God were pushing me in that direction, but not in general. If a friend of mine were Muslim, I may well be obliged to listen honestly and see what is true that they know, but that is more my obligation to listen to a friend and love them than it is an obligation actively to go out and to look for what God might have said to their prophet.

I do, however, agree that I could be talking to a person of another religion and in that conversation and in light of what they say about their religion, be moved to pray to God more fervently or do an act of love. This is completely possible!! Also, I agree with your point that God could have revealed himself to a person, even if they are not Christian.