Religious Tolerance

[Valke2]

Quote:

Does he believe in Jesus?
this is very inspiring but i wonder about the motive behind this. we have to remenber that Jesus built one Church with one faith, one Lord, and so on. This is what separate us from the world.

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…

I doubt very much Rabbi Heschel believed in Jesus. What would be the point of his quote if he did? Tolerance for beliefs which you agree with isn’t exactly difficult.

 

[Lapell]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by Valke2
In another thread I was discussing the meaning of my signature line. I found this excerpt from the article by A.J. Heschel, from which I had lifted the quote:

Rabbi Doctor Abraham Joshua Heschel, in an essay entitled “No Religion is an Island”, wrote:

"No religion is an island: there is no monopoly on holiness. We are companions of all who revere Him. We rejoice when His name is praised. No religion is an island: we share the kinship of humanity, the capacity for compassion. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. He is near to all who call upon Him in truth. God’s spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, in consonance with their deeds. The creation of one Adam promotes peace. No one can claim: my ancestry is nobler than yours.

"There is no monopoly on holiness: there is no truth without humility. We are diverse in our devotion and commitment. We must unite in working now for the kingship of God. He is near to all who call on Him in truth. There can be disagreement without disrespect. Let us help one another overcome hardness of heart, opening minds to the challenges of faith.

“Should we hope for each other’s failure? Or should we pray for each other’s welfare? Let mutual concern replace remnants of mutual contempt as we share the precarious position of being human. Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?
Let us not be guided by ignorance or disdain. Let lives of holiness illumine all our paths. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. Let our deeds reflect that we share the image of God.”**

Does he believe in Jesus?
this is very inspiring but i wonder about the motive behind this. we have to remenber that Jesus built one Church with one faith, one Lord, and so on. This is what separate us from the world.

“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…

You should not forget that when God revealed Himself to Moses and the Sons of Israel He already made them separate (“holy” has this connotation, you know!) from the rest of the world. And this was before jesus came…

 

[wisdomseeker]

You should not forget that when God revealed Himself to Moses and the Sons of Israel He already made them separate (“holy” has this connotation, you know!) from the rest of the world. And this was before jesus came…

I guess what i am trying to say is that this quote is saying is that dont bother me with your religion.
So should we stop evangelization.? dont preach about Jesus to me.
religious tolerance i agree very much. we should all tolerate each other. but the question is: how is this going to play out as far is talk to others about Jesus? if it is going to make them mad, then we should avoid to even mention the name of Jesus? it seems very complicate subject to me.

I** should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…**

 

[Lapell]

I guess what i am trying to say is that this quote is saying is that dont bother me with your religion.
So should we stop evangelization.? dont preach about Jesus to me.
religious tolerance i agree very much. we should all tolerate each other. but the question is: how is this going to play out as far is talk to others about Jesus? if it is going to make them mad, then we should avoid to even mention the name of Jesus? it seems very complicate subject to me.

I** should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…**

I do share your concern, wisdomseeker, don’t worry! To me, the Incarnation is another step further in God’s revelation to the humanity, and to us Christians there won’t be any other further step until the final resurrection and the Last Judgment. But the revelation of the One true God had previous steps before Jesus which we Christians have to acknowledge as well. Our Church doesn’t say the Jews aren’t the Chosen People any more, in fact saint Paul says (in his letter to the Romans, chapters 9, 10 and 11) that we are mysteriously ingrafted to the Chosen People through the Church, and that the Jews were NOT rejected from God (he is adamant about this, indeed!) So this we Catholics and other Christians have to acknowledge as well as saint Paul did and keep in mind.

 

[Lapell]

In fact, we should treat other people as our brothers and sisters because they are loved by God, not because they are or aren’t easy to get along with…

 

[wisdomseeker]

In fact, we should treat other people as our brothers and sisters because they are loved by God, not because they are or aren’t easy to get along with…

I am not so concern about jews converting into christianity. what i am concerned is the other religions that do not know Christ and with this type of thing; they also have the right to claim that we should not bother them with our religion. do you really think the God is pleased with us whom to this day still reject His Son?

And Jesus said: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth; it is not peace that I come to bring but a sword.”

I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church."
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D…

 

[Lapell]

In fact, we should treat other people as our brothers and sisters because they are loved by God, not because they are or aren’t easy to get along with…

What I said here included all human beings, not just the Jews.
As for evangelizing, I don’t see that you should absolutely refrain from doing so. Like saint Francis said: “Go and preach the Gospel to every nation. And if necessary, use words”!
When using words, do so with kindness and respect. And if you learn to know them before you speak to them, it may help you speak to them with more accuracy, which is indeed a good thing to acquire. Do you begin to see what I mean now?
God bless you!

 

[Lilyflower]

In another thread I was discussing the meaning of my signature line. I found this excerpt from the article by A.J. Heschel, from which I had lifted the quote:"

Diversity is everywhere so why not religion.

I am sure relgions are yet to divide and diversify even more

 

[bobzills]

Diversity is everywhere so why not religion.

I am sure relgions are yet to divide and diversify even more

I don’t understand this point. For example, if someone were to say that we should diversify and have 1+1=3 in addition to 1+1=2, then it would be clear that that would be an error. Similarly, why is it not recognised as an error if a religion does not admit to the true doctrines of Catholicism? Why should diversity be allowed in the area of religion, if there is only one true religion?

 

[Steven_John]

if it is going to make them mad, then we should avoid to even mention the name of Jesus?

Hi, just a thought,
if we are going to discuss with some one the truth that Jesus (PBWH) revealed to us and we know they will get upset at the mention of his name should we not then offer the description of his name, selfless sacrifice so they hear the message.

After all is it not that selfless sacrifice is of the way to the Father?

after some discussion when the person has warmed to the truth, we can offer them his name.

My kids have gone through a Catholic school system where it is real uncool to mention God.

I told my kids if you are not brave enough, just replace God with good.

his way they can still offer the truth but not suffer rejection. The suffering would not be such a bad thing but not being regected keeps them where they can offer more of the truth.

Peace be with you all

 

[Steven_John]

I don’t understand this point. For example, if someone were to say that we should diversify and have 1+1=3 in addition to 1+1=2, then it would be clear that that would be an error. Similarly, why is it not recognised as an error if a religion does not admit to the true doctrines of Catholicism? Why should diversity be allowed in the area of religion, if there is only one true religion?

I agree with his post, there is only one true religion, it is here now, but who really see it and embrace it.

All religions contain deviation from the One Truth among their members and at ties in teachings.
We now see they have in the past and the future will show the ones of today.

Maybe this is some of what was being offered in the previous post suggesting there will be some division.

Peace and blessings

 

[Pug]

We ought to respect other people as people, and people are to seek for the truth. How could we not allow for other people to seek and pursue the truth and keep it when they find it? It is part of being a person. Clearly, also, even if they are in error, we are to love them. Of course, if a person claims that the truth for them involves something very destructive, I don’t think a society need allow that destructive behavior (like, say, child sacrifice).

 

[Lapell]

We ought to respect other people as people, and people are to seek for the truth. How could we not allow for other people to seek and pursue the truth and keep it when they find it? It is part of being a person. Clearly, also, even if they are in error, we are to love them. Of course, if a person claims that the truth for them involves something very destructive, I don’t think a society need allow that destructive behavior (like, say, child sacrifice).

Anyhow, we now know that child sacrifices (and any sacrifices of human beings through slaughterings) is a wrong thing, we would not go back to that, I hope!

 

[Pug]

Anyhow, we now know that child sacrifices (and any sacrifices of human beings through slaughterings) is a wrong thing, we would not go back to that, I hope!

I hope, too! Religion and society still seems to be able to come in conflict, though, even though both are sincere. Take a group that absolutely refuses certain types of medical care. If a child is dying, the state might well deem that it ought to force the parents to accept this type of medical care for the child. One might at first think this is okay for the state to do, since it is preserving the life of the child, but what if the state is euthanazing severely handicapped children or children in a coma and forcing the harvested organs upon the parents/child in question? I really hope this couldn’t ever happen, but I am losing faith in our society that it couldn’t.

I guess, I don’t really think they will sacrifice children on a stone pedestal in the middle of a jungle to placate some god for the good of the community, but they might kill them for precisely the same reason as they did back then…for “the good of the community.”

I’m being sort of cynical, and all you did was make a light post! Sorry! But this type of scenario comes to my mind around the topic of religious tolerance, perhaps because of the JW and the blood thing.

 

[bobzills]

Take a group that absolutely refuses certain types of medical care. If a child is dying, the state might well deem that it ought to force the parents to accept this type of medical care for the child.

In certain areas, the state will force the parents to vaccinate their children. And some of these vaccines have been shown to be harmful to certain children. For example, Steven Hawking is disabled by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and it is said that this may have been caused by a vaccine he was injected with in childhood.

 

[Lilyflower]

I don’t understand this point. For example, if someone were to say that we should diversify and have 1+1=3 in addition to 1+1=2, then it would be clear that that would be an error. ?

Well I guess 1+1 cannot equal 3 [though no doubt some will be trying to make it so]!

1+1 =2
1/2 + 1/2 =1
1/4 X 4 =1

You can diversify and continue splitting adfinitum.

It is a fact of nature that Almighty God has made earth ‘teem’ with life. He has even made the same specie diversify according to environmental conditions. The socio-biological and social equivalent might be ‘according to genotype climate and culture’.

So it seems diversity is everywhere, so why not in religion too.

I take the lead [as always] from His Holiness Pope Benedict who asks the faithful to be tolerant and charitable towards all particularly those of different faiths. ‘Love’ the song says 'changes everything, even minds hearts and wills.

Similarly, why is it not recognised as an error if a religion does not admit to the true doctrines of Catholicism? Why should diversity be allowed in the area of religion, if there is only one true religion

Diversity be allowed because thanks to the enormous incalculable sacrifice of the Allies including USA troops in two world wars, ensured humanity [at least in the West] IS ALLOWED freedom of speech and freedom of belief

I am a committed Catholic with strong Orthodox leanings. But we cannot and must not ignore the fact there has been men and women of great who were not Catholics. It is not for us to tell the Holy Spirit where He goes. He goes and converts whom so ever He wishes and leads them where He wills

Blessings and peace

 

[Lapell]

I hope, too! Religion and society still seems to be able to come in conflict, though, even though both are sincere. Take a group that absolutely refuses certain types of medical care. If a child is dying, the state might well deem that it ought to force the parents to accept this type of medical care for the child. One might at first think this is okay for the state to do, since it is preserving the life of the child, but what if the state is euthanazing severely handicapped children or children in a coma and forcing the harvested organs upon the parents/child in question? I really hope this couldn’t ever happen, but I am losing faith in our society that it couldn’t.

I guess, I don’t really think they will sacrifice children on a stone pedestal in the middle of a jungle to placate some god for the good of the community, but they might kill them for precisely the same reason as they did back then…for “the good of the community.”

I’m being sort of cynical, and all you did was make a light post! Sorry! But this type of scenario comes to my mind around the topic of religious tolerance, perhaps because of the JW and the blood thing.

 

[Lapell]

I guess, I don’t really think they will sacrifice children on a stone pedestal in the middle of a jungle to placate some god for the good of the community, but they might kill them for precisely the same reason as they did back then…for “the good of the community.”

That… or “for the good of the Cause”!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. He is near to all who call upon Him in truth. God’s spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, in consonance with their deeds.

**** Beware of the difference between tolerance and comlacency.

For one this comment about “God spirit rests upon all; Jew or Gentile, man or woman”, It must be stated here, that prior to Jesus this was not the case in humanity. Jesus is the one mediator between God and Man that brought this justice to humanity, Every Jew, Gentile, man or woman prior to Jesus all failed God in bringing this revelation to humanity; that God is Spirit and his Love wants to be with all his creation.

Thus one cannot be complacent now that the good news is being spread. This wonderful Gospel that the above commentary so complacently reveals, as though a price was never paid by Jesus to bring his wonderful peace, as if to speak in passing and forgetting the Sacrifice that the only begotten Son of God paid for in his flesh and blood, not to mention his suffering.

Remember man is still capable of taking humanity back to the times prior to Jesus.

Yes I can be tolerant and loving to other peoples, nations and tongues, And I will share this good news about Jesus to all who will hear, and whom ever God calls. I pray my tolerance is met on a equal setting from others. Now to be complacent and accepting of every wind of doctrine, is not why Jesus suffered, was crucufied and died. Only Truth will always stand and withstand the test of time, and every wind of doctrine.

So I would disagree with the commentary, who appears to be disquising tolerance with acceptance, using Jesus Gospel truth, and forgetting who gave him his freedom to speak with such freedom, not have his head chopped off, like the apostles, Martyrs, Popes, Bishops of the Catholic church.

Peace of the Lord Jesus be with you, and may the grace and mercy of God be upon us always.********

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In another thread I was discussing the meaning of my signature line. I found this excerpt from the article by A.J. Heschel, from which I had lifted the quote:

Rabbi Doctor Abraham Joshua Heschel, in an essay entitled “No Religion is an Island”, wrote:

"No religion is an island: there is no monopoly on holiness. We are companions of all who revere Him. We rejoice when His name is praised. No religion is an island: we share the kinship of humanity, the capacity for compassion. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. He is near to all who call upon Him in truth. God’s spirit rests upon all, Jew or Gentile, man or woman, in consonance with their deeds. The creation of one Adam promotes peace. No one can claim: my ancestry is nobler than yours.

"There is no monopoly on holiness: there is no truth without humility. We are diverse in our devotion and commitment. We must unite in working now for the kingship of God. He is near to all who call on Him in truth. There can be disagreement without disrespect. Let us help one another overcome hardness of heart, opening minds to the challenges of faith.

“Should we hope for each other’s failure? Or should we pray for each other’s welfare? Let mutual concern replace remnants of mutual contempt as we share the precarious position of being human. Have we not all one Father? Are we not all His children?
Let us not be guided by ignorance or disdain. Let lives of holiness illumine all our paths. The hand of God is extended to all who seek Him. Let our deeds reflect that we share the image of God.”

I would like to add an additional note to this commentary; althought it does not give glory to God for giving humanity this peace, and the teachings of Jesus Christ from where this revelation derives from. The commentary still lives in the world, because the commentary admits that there is still Gentiles and Jews existing, and denies what God has revealed and sacrificed for… With this type of mentality mixed with the revealation of peace from Jesus disqualifies my Catholic faith. For all those who are of the Spirit of God whether in heaven or on earth, where there is no Jew or no Gentiles, for we are all one, in one Lord, In One body Jesus Christ. To the Catholic Christian there are no divisions that divide humanity example Jews and Gentiles. For those of the Spirit are no longer of this world, and those of the flesh are of the world.

I find this commentary Lacking in giving God the glory for breaking down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile, where they are no longer in Jesus Christ. To preach Jesus peace to all, and then keep to your worldly identity that seperates one from the other is not preaching peace, but division to live seperately in belief and morals, which keeps man in the dark ages of self.

Had the author of the commentary given God the credit for this Peace and tolerance, I may have walked away with a different perspective. And it would of given the reader an opportunity to seek out this God of Peace from which one stands and grow with his neighbor. Not as the commentary states, You remain where you are, and I will remain where I stand, and I will tolerate you so long as you dont invade or hurt me. Where would we be today if Jesus spoke this way? and not suffered for all of humanity?

Those that are of God are no more Jews or Gentiles or Greeks. The Christian is one Catholic (universal) body of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church includes every nation, toungue and people, Remaining in divided TOLERABLE, COMPLACENCE societies keeps man from ever knowing God. To deny Jesus Gospel to be preached is what I take this commentary to state with peaceful awe, so that to keep others from coming to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. One is not forced to become Christian, It is God’s will that all know of the peace of Jesus Christ, then make a decision of their eternal salvation.