"My basic tiff with any religion, even in its pure form: I don't believe it's the _only way_ to salvation. There are, for example, enlightened humans around the world who bring nothing but God's love into the world. But they aren't, for example, Christians, so Christians would say those humans are going to hell. I'm like, "what???"Well, before we get into the "love of God" part, lets cover "truth" and that all too important word, "tolerance." We can't talk about God until we have a basis that truth exists and that believing in it doesn't make one intolerant. If it sounds preachy at any point, tell me. Some places I know I just have to write some things out so you get my reference point and you don't think I'm talking out of my ass.
When you get a chance, I'm genuinely interested in your comments on that."
Greg Koukl points out very clearly - in his article posted on the Stand to Reason* website, "Using the modern definition of tolerance, you will see that no one is tolerant, or ever can be. It's what my friend Frank Beckwith calls the "passive aggressive tolerance trick."
Koukl had the privilege of speaking to seniors at a high school in Des Moines. He wanted to alert them to this "tolerance trick," but He also wanted to learn how much they had already been taken in by it so he began by writing two sentences on the board:
"All views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another."
"Jesus is the Messiah and Judaism is wrong for rejecting that."
"They all nodded in agreement as I wrote the first sentence," Koukl said. "As soon as I finished writing the second, though, hands flew up. "You can't say that," a coed challenged, clearly annoyed. "That's disrespectful. How would you like it if someone said you were wrong?"
"In fact, that happens to me all the time," he pointed out, "including right now with you. But why should it bother me that someone thinks I'm wrong?"
"It's intolerant," she said, noting that the second statement violated the first statement. What she didn't see was that the first statement also violated itself. Or that she was being intolerant by calling him intolerant. He pointed to the first statement and asked, "Is this a view, the idea that all views have equal merit and none should be considered better than another?" They agreed.
"Then I pointed to the second statement—the "intolerant" one—and asked the same question: "Is this a view?" They studied the sentence for a moment. Slowly my point began to dawn on them. They'd been taken in by the tolerance trick. If all views have equal merit, then the view that Christians have a better view on Jesus than Jews is just as true as the idea that Jews have a better view on Jesus than Christians. But this is hopelessly contradictory. If the first statement is what tolerance amounts to, then no one can be tolerant because "tolerance" turns out to be gibberish."
The same goes for 'truth.' It is often popular now to say that all gods are "real," or that they are all one with different names and that every religion should be respected for their "interpretation" of the truth. But saying that everything is true makes nothing true and saying that nothing is true is a logical fallacy (a statement that nothing can be true, makes that statement ... drumroll ... untrue).
Many people get angry or upset during discussions though because they are afraid to look at the truth face to face. Truth is a very scary thing, admittedly. It is far more solid and concrete than anything we are capable of processing, certainly more so than any human being comprehend in its entirety. It becomes clear that fear and cowardice drive most arguments - as opposed to intelligent discussions. We should face each of these and either deal with them or be changed by them.
So, if you want to know how to defeat this dilemma of tolerance, then use the old formula:
"Be egalitarian regarding persons."
"Be elitist regarding ideas."
Koukl points out, "The first principle is true tolerance, what might be called "civility." It can loosely be equated with the word "respect." Tolerance applies to how we treat people we disagree with, not how we treat ideas we think false. Tolerance requires that every person is treated courteously, no matter what her view, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth.
Don't let this new notion of tolerance intimidate you. Treat all people with respect, but be willing to show them where their ideas have gone wrong. The modern notion of tolerance actually turns this value on its head. It's one of the first responses deployed when you take exception with what someone has said. "You're intolerant." "
To say I'm intolerant because I disagree with someone's ideas is confused. The view that one person's ideas are no better or truer than another's is simply absurd and contradictory. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful definition or standard of tolerance or truth. If there is not an actual "truth" then there is no definition of the word and the word becomes useless. But you cannot say that there is no truth because, as I pointed out above, then your own statement... can't be true either. There simply must be truth.
The irony is that according to the classical notion of truth and tolerance, you can't tolerate someone unless you disagree with him. We don't "tolerate" people who share our views, because they're on our side! There's nothing to "put up" with. Tolerance is reserved for those who we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat them decently and with respect. This essential element of classical tolerance - Elitism regarding ideas - has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you're called intolerant no matter how you treat them.
So if someone says your are intolerant, ask for a definition, then point out the contradiction built in to this his view.
In talking to many people about this, it is all too easy to get into heated debates, as I said. But there is no reason to. And to not get into a debate is not necessarily being "tolerant." Most of what passes for tolerance today is intellectual cowardice, a fear of intelligent engagement. Again, Koukl points out, "Brandishing the word "intolerant" are people usually unwilling to be challenged by other views, to grapple with contrary opinions, or even to consider them. It's easier to hurl an insult—"you intolerant bigot"—than to confront the idea and either refute it or be changed by it. In the modern era, "tolerance" has become intolerance." Something I said a little about above.
Now onto God's love and those who love Him. First, If you believe in any sort of god, but hate religion, then you must search for Him - it may be worth it to find out if He has some sort of plan for you... which I believe He does. If there is a God, then you will not find Him without looking, and He cannot be found without telling us something about Himself. (Just as you won't know anything about the "real me" without spending time with me.) And most of the religions do say that He has spoken to them. And they almost ALL say that theirs is the only way, some to the point of death, eg Muslims. So you should search. I have found Christianity to be the only one that allowed for everything else, including science and the other smaller religions, the personality of men, the love of nature and the sanctity of life.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." -- C. S. Lewis
More on that later. But saying that there is only One way may not be mean, nor cruel. It may simply be the truth. If there is a "God" with a capital G, the uncreated, eternal one, then there is only One. There cannot be two or more. God in that sense has no plural.
Now, what do we say about the enlightened humans who have brought God's love into the world and aren't "Christian?" Well, if they have brought real, godly love and "light" then there is only One Source for that. The Light that Illuminates the entirety of Creation must, therefore, shed some of itself on all religions. If there is truth, then it must come from God, and though something someone says may not be 100 percent true, the truth that it has, yep, comes from God. That is one reason why I find Christianity to be true. Too many other religions seem to be too close to it. Ancient pagans, even corn gods who die and rise again (Balder, etc), all bare some resemblance to Christ. I cannot image that if Christ were truly God, He would be completely different from all of them - if He were, I would know straight away that he had been made up like a comic book superman. All the others pointed to, in a sort of prophetic light, Christ, the historical man.
So all the other men that come into the world that share God's love - and you should read the Bible (thoroughly) because its in there - that God has written His word on the hearts of all men and therefore we all are without excuse. Even atheists know its wrong to murder. The Christian God says (in Isaiah among others, if you are interested) that He wants to save all of humanity. Not just "one nation." He simply chose one nation to go through to do it because there cannot be more than one Christ and He needed a background that would be prepared for Him ( if there were more than one Christ, then everyone would do worse than they do now with fake ones, declaring that theirs is the real christ - whereas Jesus is the only man (not counting the false christs, eg Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Moonies) to say that God came in the flesh and took your sins away for you. If God wants to save mankind, He only has to do it once. One should die in the place of all - and no one is perfect enough to do that but God Himself.
So? What happens to those other religious dudes? What about sweet little girls in the hovels of North Korea? We do not know. If they lived and showed great love and mercy and never even heard of Christ? God IS justice. Don't you think He will take that all into account? I am quite sure He knows what they would have said had they been told about Him.
We simply do not know what will happen to them. We are not told. So anyone who makes a defining statement about them is judging - something we are warned not to do.
Now what about the guy who hears and doesn't accept? I don't know either. I am told not to judge. What if that man (or woman) didn't accept Christ because he had an abusive priest but he wanted to love God and loved his neighbor nonetheless. He just got a bad taste of something parading itself as Christianity. He may have known more about real Christianity than the priest. What does God say? Again, I don't know. But God is just, that I do know.
He doesn't tell us even about others we know personally. Peter (one of the first followers of Jesus) was walking with Jesus on the shore one day and asked about another man (John). Jesus turned to Peter and said, "What is that to you? You follow me." In other words, its none of our business. I should be worried about me and God, and love Him and love my neighbor.
About the man who says no, period, I don't believe, I don't care: Well, if this were your son and he wanted out side your house and told you he didn't recognize you, then suddenly the rains came but he still didn't want anything to do with you or care - basically totally disowned you - and either a) never came back, or b) tried to sneak in another way, you would catch him as a thief, though you may still try to be merciful to him, right? He's your son. God will be as merciful as we each allow Him to be. If you don't want in the house, He won't make you come in. If you try to sneak in though, I can tell you, you aren't clever nor good enough.
This is a bad analogy. Its more like if you don't come through Christ and share His life, then you won't have enough "life" to make it through death.
So then you ask why is Christ the only way? Think of this, if you have done anything wrong, ever, then in order to return to perfection, you have to pay for your wrong. How can you pay a debt for your own life and yet live?
No, wait, lets put that another way: If God is life, then in turning away from Him (and not even so much as disobeying laws of how we are to live, but think of those laws as "the definition of the reality of God") if you turn away from Life Himself, then that only leaves death. You have taken your life into your own hands. The more you take it into your own hands and do things simply "your way," the less real God will seem to you. But in turning back, giving yourself back to those Hands, God gives you back your full life, brimming over with more of (and here is the important part) yourself than you ever had - and what then does God do with that death you have 'accumulated?' He can either let you have it or take it Himself. If you choose Him, He takes it for you (on the cross). Turns out, upon inspection, Jesus is the only way.
So what Jesus basically says this, 'Do what I have told you, and do it well. But don't think that is what's gonna get you into Heaven. That is the sort of people I want here with me, but that isn't the key to the gate itself. I am the gatekeeper, I am the gate. Its my house. If you think you can get in on your own merit, you are sadly mistaken. No one is good enough. No one can storm the gates nor breach the wall. No one. I make the devils of hell quake in their boots. But all you have to do is ask, and I long to give you back life, I long to let you in my house. So come, ask.'
*Much of the first part of this is simply copied from Koukl's radio broadcast. Please read the article yourself here.
No comments:
Post a Comment