How Can We Claim Our Faith as Exclusive?

[Petergee]

Vietnam was hardly “alone among the Asian nations” in having a written system to communicate their language only because of Jesuits

The Chinese had a complete writing system as early as the Shang dynasty 3200 years ago, which was adopted by the Japanese by the 4th century CE. The Chinese writing system was used by Vietnam until its independence from China, Vietnam developed its own writing system that was used for 1000 years

“After Vietnamese independence from China in 939 CE, scholars began their creation of Chữ nôm, a logographic script that represents Vietnamese speech. For nearly the next 1,000 years – from the 10th century and into the 20th – much of Vietnamese literature, philosophy, history, law, medicine, religion, and government policy was written in Nom script. During the 14 years of the Tây Sơn (西山) emperors (1788–1802), all administrative documents were written in Chữ nôm. In the 18th century, many notable Vietnamese writers and poets composed their works in Chữ nôm, among them Nguyễn Du (阮攸) and Hồ Xuân Hương (胡春香). With the 17th century advent of Quốc ngữ(國語) – the modern roman-style script – Chữ nôm literacy gradually died out. In 1920, the colonial government decreed against its use. Today, fewer than 100 scholars world-wide can read Chữ nôm effectively. Much of Vietnam’s written history is inaccessible to the 80 million speakers of the language. A few Buddhist monks and the Jing (京), the Vietnamese living in China, can read Chữ nôm to some extent. (Original text provided by the Nom Preservation Foundation, with permission granted to publish this text under the GNU Free Documentation License.)”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Nom

The modern roman-style script has actually separated the people from their history.

Of course it hasn’t. That’s like saying that modern Catholics are separated from our history because 99% of us can’t read Latin, Ancient Greek or Aramaic. Are Turks cut off from their hisory because the Roman alphabet was introduced by Ataturk’s decree in 1923 to replace Arabic-style script? Are Koreans cut off from their history because the strictly phonetic alphabetic system invented by their greatest king 500 years ago gradually took over until it finally became universal in the mid-20th century? Of course not. In each case, people today read their country’s/culture’s religion’s ancient works in translation/transliteration. The use of alphabetic systems, particularly the Roman alphabet, is an immense benefit to a country, making it far easier to learn to read, and enabling people to know the pronunciation, and hence the meaning, even of words they have never seen before, vastly enhancing their ability to absornb and transmit their culture and ideas. That’s why the Communist Chinese government, despite its vigorous atheism and nationalism, is seriously looking at introducting the Roman alphabet for Chinese, and is even running pilot programs in schools in certain areas.

. Children of Native Americans were sent forcibly to English language-only boarding schools and cut off from their families and their culture, including their religion and language, to “civilize” them.

Not sure what this unconnected allegation is meant to be doing here, other than to muddy the waters by creating a false mental associatoin of such practices with the Jesuits’ giving the Vietnamese an alphabet.

Was this the intent of the Jesuits actively evil? No, but when one is convinced that one’s own way is not only the best, but really the only, way, one can do immeasurable damage to something that is already thriving and valuable, but different.

Perhaps you should ask yourself what Vietnam’s history would have been like if the Jesuits and other missionaries had NOT got there before the rapacious colonists arrived.

Everyman, I think you might find the book by John Michael Greer, “A World Full of Gods: an inquiry into polytheism,” interesting. It looks at the classic logical proof for monotheism and applies them to polytheism. Interesting food for thought.

That would seem impossible. Contrary to the empty atheist slogan, “We just believe in one less god than you do”, there is a world of difference between “The God” and " a god". As soon as you believe in a second “god”, the first God can by definition no longer be omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient etc. The polytheist “gods” are really just like immortal super-humans, like the superheroes of comic strips. There is no comparison with the God of Jews, Christians and Moslems.

 

[Researcher]

Why have so many cultures over the years held a belief in a creator being(s)? We read how God talked to Abram. Could God have talked to others as well? Abram had to pass a test. Could it be that Abram was the first and only to pass this test? Maybe the leader of the Aztecs was also asked by God to sacrafice his son but would not stop when God asked him to stop. They then became addicted to the sacrafic of their young. This is all speculation of course but could God have talked to other before Abram?

Now since Abram did pass the test of obediance to God, through his decendants God revealed His glory through Jesus. Regarding Christianity and the various denominations and which one is right, well again we have to look at the authority Jesus established. Most all of these denominations have some of the truth in them but none more than the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[KarenNC]

** The use of alphabetic systems, particularly the Roman alphabet, is an immense benefit to a country, making it far easier to learn to read, and enabling people to know the pronunciation, and hence the meaning, even of words they have never seen before, vastly enhancing their ability to absornb and transmit their culture and ideas. …**

I was responding to the statement that
“An alphabet, or writing of some kind, is necessary for traditions to be passed on faithfully. It is writing that allows a culture to transcend time and not be lost in the dust.
Bringing new and beneficial knowledge to people is good. Helping people be able to learn to read and write their own language is good.
I have absolutely no idea where you’re coming from that you could see such a thing as destructive.”

The point of this was that Vietnam actually already had a writing system as did most of the civilizations in that part of the world contrary to the statements made by the person to whom I responded. That countries with non-Roman alphabetic systems have hardly been “lost in the dust” or been unable to “transcend time” or for “traditions to be passed on faithfully.”

It is also worth noting that oral transmission worked remarkably well for millenia, so civilizations that do not have a written language should not automatically be considered to have no links with their history. A writing system is certainly desirable for ease of consistent transmission, but it is not the only way.

**That’s like saying that modern Catholics are separated from our history because 99% of us can’t read Latin, Ancient Greek or Aramaic…In each case, people today read their country’s/culture’s religion’s ancient works in translation/transliteration./ **

Actually, you are, as I am to a greater or lesser degree because I do not read the original languages. It is a handicap. Without knowledge of the original, one is dependent upon translation. Otherwise why is it important that Christian clergy study Latin, Greek and Aramaic in seminary? Why would Latin be taught in Catholic school? Why do Jews learn Hebrew or Muslims Arabic, and not in transliterated form? What is the goal other than the one to be able to read one’s original theological and historical documents in the language in which they were written? In many ways language and culture are inseparable and anyone who has tried to translate between two languages will tell you that there are things that simply do not translate well or easily.

How many of the discussions, arguments and theological differences on these boards, especially between Protestant and Catholic, hinge on the way in which a word or phrase has been translated?

I think the Muslims may well be onto something when they insist that the only real, religiously legitimate way to read the Koran is in the original Arabic, that the translations and transliterations are not the same.

**Not sure what this unconnected allegation is meant to be doing here, other than to muddy the waters by creating a false mental associatoin of such practices with the Jesuits’ giving the Vietnamese an alphabet. **

To point out ways in which one people’s well-intentioned attempts to remodel another people to look more like themselves can actually indeed be destructive to that culture and its heritage. The person to whom I responded could not imagine, according to his statement, how bringing language changes, etc could be destructive.

**That would seem impossible. **

I invite you to read the book. It is too long to reproduce here, plus contrary to copyright law

**there is a world of difference between “The God” and " a god". As soon as you believe in a second “god”, the first God can by definition no longer be omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient etc. **

Yes, there is a difference. You are totally correct. None of the Gods are omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient, etc and I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that the God of the Christians, the God of the Jews or the God of the Muslims is either (and the jury is out on whether those three are identical).

**The polytheist “gods” are really just like immortal super-humans, like the superheroes of comic strips. **

No they are not comic strip superheroes or just immortal humans, anymore than your God is “just” an old man with a long white beard and white robes who sits on a chair up in the sky surrounded by fat little naked boys with tiny wings on their backs. They are something very different from humanity.

 

[KarenNC]

We read how God talked to Abram. Could God have talked to others as well? Abram had to pass a test. Could it be that Abram was the first and only to pass this test? Maybe the leader of the Aztecs was also asked by God to sacrafice his son but would not stop when God asked him to stop. They then became addicted to the sacrafic of their young. This is all speculation of course but could God have talked to other before Abram?

Maybe the others simply said no, I will not sacrifice my child and do not consider worthy of worship a God who would ask me to do so?

 

[Valke2]

?

Now since Abram did pass the test of obediance to God, through his decendants God revealed His glory through Jesus. Regarding Christianity and the various denominations and which one is right, well again we have to look at the authority Jesus established. Most all of these denominations have some of the truth in them but none more than the Roman Catholic Church.

God revealed His glory to Israel every day for 40 years.

 

[Fa_Chan]

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.

Sounds a lot like myself…at least the way I used to be.

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.

Again, ditto for me. I was raised conservative Southern Baptist. I thought the Baptists were the true Christians with everyone else an inferior second, poor mislead people and only me and my Jesus was right. After studying Mormonism and other traditions like Catholicism, my Baptist faith was shattered. I began to question my pastors and teachers. I left the Baptist faith and began to studying Eastern religions.

Maybe I’m just a jerk.

No, just human.

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.

Before globalization we thought other countries were evil and religions foolish. Once we are confronted with the people of those countries we find out they are actually agreeable people and those other religions not so far-fetched.

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.

We see only what we want to see. If you seek to find the similarities in the world you will find them. If you seek to find differences you will find them too. It’s all about perspective.

There is a universal message found in most religions. We only have to look to see it. If we are convinced our way is right and all others wrong we will not see that universal message of hope, love and peace.

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?

You keep an open mind and let your heart lead the way

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity. All religions make this claim. You can go to the graves of all the other religions and dig up the bones of their founders. The main difference with Christiainity is we have a living Savior and by this fact alone it is the true religion. No other religion claim a living founder. God is the author of Christianity and He is the God of the Bible. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 tells us that if the resurrection of Christ did not happen then Christianity is not true. But it did happen and more than 500 people were eye witnesses to the fact that Christ died and rose again.

DLC

Not all religions claim this. Buddhism does not claim their way is the only way to salvation. It’s a shame that people lump all religions together. And yes, the Buddha’s body eventually passed away and was buried. That doesn’t mean his message has passed away. It’s as powerful today as always.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Future_Prodigy]

I have read the first couple response and don’t want to read anymore. Look up some inter-faith dialogues its not as black and white as people on here make it seem. The catechism itself says that! I often struggle with this notion too and am actually a editor of a university journal about religious pluralism (not relativism!).

 

[Future_Prodigy]

fa chan you are 100% wrong. The buddha is exclusive. If we do not follow the Buddha Dharma then you continue in suffering and will therefore lead into more rebirths of endless suffering, the onyl way to escape this cycle is by following the Dharma. The buddhist teachigns are just as exclusivist as other religions, if you want me to be more specific i can.

 

[LilyM]

There is nothing you can say or do that will make Jesus Christ give up on yourself or any saved believer. Nothing. Ever.

He is omnipotent unto all generations - Omnes, omnes!

We’re not saying that Christ or God gives up on us during life. We surely give up on him at times though, the ‘saved’ as well as the unsaved. Even Paul, who was ‘saved’ if anyone was, spoke of his own fear and trembling regarding his salvation. And he told us all to take heed lest we fall. Not that we never climb, but FALL - meaning that we can go backwards, from a state of grace or ‘savedness’ to its opposite. it’s a stark warning that even those who arrogantly think they’ve ‘made it’ salvation-wise can ‘unmake it’

Point is he is all just as well as all merciful - if we say we believe or that we are saved, but don’t produce fruits worthy of our belief and ‘saved’ status, don’t keep His commandments, don’t feed the hungry and clothe the naked etc as he has bid us do, there’s no reason he would let us into heaven.

 

[Fa_Chan]

Vietnam was hardly “alone among the Asian nations” in having a written system to communicate their language only because of Jesuits

The Chinese had a complete writing system as early as the Shang dynasty 3200 years ago, which was adopted by the Japanese by the 4th century CE. The Chinese writing system was used by Vietnam until its independence from China, Vietnam developed its own writing system that was used for 1000 years

“After Vietnamese independence from China in 939 CE, scholars began their creation of Chữ nôm, a logographic script that represents Vietnamese speech. For nearly the next 1,000 years – from the 10th century and into the 20th – much of Vietnamese literature, philosophy, history, law, medicine, religion, and government policy was written in Nom script. During the 14 years of the Tây Sơn (西山) emperors (1788–1802), all administrative documents were written in Chữ nôm. In the 18th century, many notable Vietnamese writers and poets composed their works in Chữ nôm, among them Nguyễn Du (阮攸) and Hồ Xuân Hương (胡春香). With the 17th century advent of Quốc ngữ(國語) – the modern roman-style script – Chữ nôm literacy gradually died out. In 1920, the colonial government decreed against its use. Today, fewer than 100 scholars world-wide can read Chữ nôm effectively. Much of Vietnam’s written history is inaccessible to the 80 million speakers of the language. A few Buddhist monks and the Jing (京), the Vietnamese living in China, can read Chữ nôm to some extent. (Original text provided by the Nom Preservation Foundation, with permission granted to publish this text under the GNU Free Documentation License.)”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Nom

The modern roman-style script has actually separated the people from their history. Children of Native Americans were sent forcibly to English language-only boarding schools and cut off from their families and their culture, including their religion and language, to “civilize” them.

Was this the intent of the Jesuits actively evil? No, but when one is convinced that one’s own way is not only the best, but really the only, way, one can do immeasurable damage to something that is already thriving and valuable, but different.

Everyman, I think you might find the book by John Michael Greer, “A World Full of Gods: an inquiry into polytheism,” interesting. It looks at the classic logical proof for monotheism and applies them to polytheism. Interesting food for thought.

Thank you for pointing this out Karen. It’s ludicrous to think that French Jesuits gave the Vietnamese their alphabet and assume that Asian countries were somehow backwards and illiterate before Western colonization. He might not believe me, so I’m glad you said it

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

fa chan you are 100% wrong. The buddha is exclusive. If we do not follow the Buddha Dharma then you continue in suffering and will therefore lead into more rebirths of endless suffering, the onyl way to escape this cycle is by following the Dharma. The buddhist teachigns are just as exclusivist as other religions, if you want me to be more specific i can.

the Buddhist faith is not the only one true faith (which the OP was talking about). If we want to be released from the cycle of birth and death, then yes, we should follow the Buddha’s way. But, that doesn’t make my faith the only true faith in the world. You misunderstand the Buddha’s teachings and stray far from great tolerant teachers such as His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama who is very emphatic about the goodness and truthfulness found in other religions. Please, by all means start a new thread relating to this topic and I will be glad to exchange views further.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Fa_Chan]

Of course it hasn’t. That’s like saying that modern Catholics are separated from our history because 99% of us can’t read Latin, Ancient Greek or Aramaic. Are Turks cut off from their hisory because the Roman alphabet was introduced by Ataturk’s decree in 1923 to replace Arabic-style script? Are Koreans cut off from their history because the strictly phonetic alphabetic system invented by their greatest king 500 years ago gradually took over until it finally became universal in the mid-20th century? Of course not. In each case, people today read their country’s/culture’s religion’s ancient works in translation/transliteration. The use of alphabetic systems, particularly the Roman alphabet, is an immense benefit to a country, making it far easier to learn to read, and enabling people to know the pronunciation, and hence the meaning, even of words they have never seen before, vastly enhancing their ability to absornb and transmit their culture and ideas. That’s why the Communist Chinese government, despite its vigorous atheism and nationalism, is seriously looking at introducting the Roman alphabet for Chinese, and is even running pilot programs in schools in certain areas.Not sure what this unconnected allegation is meant to be doing here, other than to muddy the waters by creating a false mental associatoin of such practices with the Jesuits’ giving the Vietnamese an alphabet. Perhaps you should ask yourself what Vietnam’s history would have been like if the Jesuits and other missionaries had NOT got there before the rapacious colonists arrived.
That would seem impossible. Contrary to the empty atheist slogan, “We just believe in one less god than you do”, there is a world of difference between “The God” and " a god". As soon as you believe in a second “god”, the first God can by definition no longer be omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient etc. The polytheist “gods” are really just like immortal super-humans, like the superheroes of comic strips. There is no comparison with the God of Jews, Christians and Moslems.

This is off topic, but I have to say that the Chinese form of writing is beautiful with its symbology and has no need of being Romanized. The only reason the Chinese government seeks to do this is to destroy the traditional Chinese and their way of life. They want as less opposition as possible to what they see as progress for their country, which is really not progress but continued subjugation of its people and rich cultural heritage.

And, Vietnam would have been fine without the Jesuits. During the Vietnam war, there was much harm done by Americans to the Vietnamese people. Venerable Master Thich Nhat Hanh (Zen Buddhist master) has detailed some of this in his many writings. He was there and experienced the spitting of soldiers upon monks of his order and the attempt to belittle and demean their way of life. So much for religious tolerance.

Peace…

Fa Chan

 

[Valke2]

Christianity is not the only religion that claims exclusivity. All religions make this claim. You can go to the graves of all the other religions and dig up the bones of their founders. The main difference with Christiainity is we have a living Savior and by this fact alone it is the true religion. No other religion claim a living founder. God is the author of Christianity and He is the God of the Bible. Paul in 1 Cor. 15 tells us that if the resurrection of Christ did not happen then Christianity is not true. But it did happen and more than 500 people were eye witnesses to the fact that Christ died and rose again.

DLC

Judaism claims the Creator of life as its founder.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

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:

I COULD NOT AGREE WITH YOU MORE ON THIS ISSUE…I WOULD ALSO LOVE TO HEAR WHAT CATHOLICS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL THOSE FOLK WHO LIVED BEFORE JESUS ARRIVED HERE ON EARTH. ARE THEY ALL GOING TO HELL , AFTER ALL THEY COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CATHOLICS !!! WE MUST NEVER FALL INTO THE TRAP OF THINKING THAT WE ARE SOMEHOW ‘QUALIFIED’ TO PASS JUDGEMENT ON OTHERS ; I PERSONALLY FEEL ILL WHEN I HAVE TO LISTEN TO SOME PROTESTANT MINISTERS TELLING OTHERS ‘HOW TO BECOME SAVED’. I OFTEN THINK THAT SOME OF THESE ‘NEW’ CHURCHES ARE VERY CLOSE TO FALLING INTO THE CULT CATEGORY. IT DOESN’T GET EASIER TO STOMACH WHEN I EXPERIENCE MORE LOVE/FRIENDSHIP COMING FROM PEOPLE OF OTHER FAITHS ! THEREFORE , I REMIND MYSELF CONSTANTLY THAT WE WERE ALL CREATED IN HIS IMAGE…ALL MANKIND FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME ! THIS HAS BROUGHT ME MUCH PEACE…!

 

[Sixtus]

All religions can’t be correct, can they?

I believe there are essential elements of truth in every religion.

It is within man’s nature to question, think, meditate and reflect upon. Surely then every deep meditator could or should ultimately link up to the Divine?

I am convinced it was not Christ’s intention to found a religion, rather a Kingdom based on the ruling principles of love, forgiveness and goodwill.

St Augustine in summing up the whole of the Gospels says: ‘love and do what you will’! There I think lies a clue

 

[Pug]

Why have so many cultures over the years held a belief in a creator being(s)?

A worthwhile question. The bible hints that even without special interaction with God, people can know God from what he created, which to me implies they ought to be able to think of God as a creator:
Romans 1:

…what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made…

Just our curiosity alone would lead people to ask, “Who made this?” I’d expect many cultures to think of the idea of some type of creator. Just on this basis alone, I’d think there would be some truth in most long-standing religions.

 

[Petergee]

**oral transmission worked remarkably well for millenia, so civilizations that do not have a written language should not automatically be considered to have no links with their history. **

Oops! you were doing pretty well for a little while until you flatly contradictced your earlier claim that those nasty Jesuits cut the Vietnamese off from their history.

**That’s like saying that modern Catholics are separated from our history because 99% of us can’t read Latin, Ancient Greek or Aramaic…In each case, people today read their country’s/culture’s religion’s ancient works in translation/transliteration./ **

Actually, you are, as I am to a greater or lesser degree because I do not read the original languages. It is a handicap. Without knowledge of the original, one is dependent upon translation. Otherwise why is it important that Christian clergy study Latin, Greek and Aramaic in seminary? Why would Latin be taught in Catholic school? Why do Jews learn Hebrew or Muslims Arabic, and not in transliterated form? What is the goal other than the one to be able to read one’s original theological and historical documents in the language in which they were written? In many ways language and culture are inseparable and anyone who has tried to translate between two languages will tell you that there are things that simply do not translate well or easily.

How many of the discussions, arguments and theological differences on these boards, especially between Protestant and Catholic, hinge on the way in which a word or phrase has been translated?

I think the Muslims may well be onto something when they insist that the only real, religiously legitimate way to read the Koran is in the original Arabic, that the translations and transliterations are not the same.

**Not sure what this unconnected allegation is meant to be doing here, other than to muddy the waters by creating a false mental associatoin of such practices with the Jesuits’ giving the Vietnamese an alphabet. **

True, I shouldn’t have mentioned the case of different languages for the Catholics because I was really talking about transliteration (different ways of writing the SAME language) not translation. Btw very few Christian clergy study Latin, Greek or Aramaic. Unlike other religions which are inevitably tied to particular ethnicity/language/culture, Catholicism is, well, catholic - equally at home in all cultures, languages and races.

To point out ways in which one people’s well-intentioned attempts to remodel another people to look more like themselves can actually indeed be destructive to that culture and its heritage. The person to whom I responded could not imagine, according to his statement, how bringing language changes, etc could be destructive.

You’re confusing the 17th century missionaries with the 19th century colonists. Far from attempting to remodel the Vietnamese to make them European, the Jesuits deserve much credit for helping the Vietnamese to successfully survive the later onslaught of colonialsim with their culture intact.

**That would seem impossible. **

I invite you to read the book. It is too long to reproduce here, plus contrary to copyright law

You seem intelligent enough to give us the gist of the argument in 25 words or so.

**there is a world of difference between “The God” and " a god". As soon as you believe in a second “god”, the first God can by definition no longer be omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient etc. **

Yes, there is a difference. You are totally correct. None of the Gods are omnipotent, omniscient, all-sufficient, etc and I have yet to see evidence that convinces me that the God of the Christians, the God of the Jews or the God of the Muslims is either (and the jury is out on whether those three are identical).

**The polytheist “gods” are really just like immortal super-humans, like the superheroes of comic strips. **

No they are not comic strip superheroes or just immortal humans, anymore than your God is “just” an old man with a long white beard and white robes who sits on a chair up in the sky surrounded by fat little naked boys with tiny wings on their backs. They are something very different from humanity.

Your personal beliefs are duly noted but are beside the point, which is that the Jews, Christians and Moslems teach and believe that God is omnipotent, etc. and is far from your conception of God whicch is based on literally interpreting certain artistic conventions. (AND they each teach that “their” God is the same God as the God “of” the other monotheist religions.) Polytheist religions believe nothing like this. They have made their “gods” in their own image.

 

[Petergee]

Vietnam would have been fine without the Jesuits. During the Vietnam war, there was much harm done by Americans to the Vietnamese people. Venerable Master Thich Nhat Hanh (Zen Buddhist master) has detailed some of this in his many writings. He was there and experienced the spitting of soldiers upon monks of his order and the attempt to belittle and demean their way of life. So much for religious tolerance.

Peace…

Fa Chan

Jesuits - wear black robes, carry Bibles, teach and help people. GIs - wear camouflage, carry guns, shoot people. Sorry, your “Jesuits = GIs” theory doesn’t seem to hold up.

 

[Petergee]

I believe there are essential elements of truth in every religion.

It is within man’s nature to question, think, meditate and reflect upon. Surely then every deep meditator could or should ultimately link up to the Divine?

I am convinced it was not Christ’s intention to found a religion, rather a Kingdom based on the ruling principles of love, forgiveness and goodwill.

Indeed. He said He would build His Church, His Kingdom, in the world but not **of **the world.

St Augustine in summing up the whole of the Gospels says: ‘love and do what you will’! There I think lies a clue

Here’s another clue from old 'Gus: “I would not believe in the truth of the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.”