|
ngdawg: I think you're being a bit oversensitive here, no offense. Asaris simply stated what the Catholic Church states: that all religions have Truth, but only Catholicism has the fullness of Truth. This Inclusivism is not contradictory at all. That doesn't mean it's right - but it's not an outright contradiction. Asaris did not insult or judge anyone for not believing what he believes, he simply stated his take on the matter. Besides, merely stating a belief that someone is wrong is hardly disrespectful - the "do unto others" admonition doesn't apply here.
Either way, Judaism can most certainly be derived from human error (again, this does not mean it is so, I'm merely pointing out that asaris' belief is not logically flawed). The history of Judaism is rife with people "on the inside" pointing out that its followers are in error. Christianity is the result of yet another one of those insiders (merely prophet to some, messiah to others) pointing out what he believed to be errors in the practices of Jews. So, from a Christian point of view, the mere fact that someone practices Judaism as opposed to Christianity (remember, the first Christians very likely originally considered themselves Jews, until they were so ostracized by their fellow Jews that they no longer identified with them) means that they are remaining in error. It *doesn't* mean, as asaris pointed out, at least to Catholics, that Judaism doesn't have Truth to be learned from it. It doesn't means Jews cannot find salvation - however one may define it. This belief merely means that Judaism doesn't contain the fullness of truth.
As for me, I find that I lean more towards relativism than inclusivism. Think of it this way: with inclusivism, religion A says X, Y, and Z. Religion B says X, C, and D. Religion A is an inclusivist religion, so it believes that religion B still has Truth but not the fullness of Truth. Relativism is slightly different however - but it is *NOT* an endorsement of all religions and religious practices. With relativism, religion A says X, Y, and Z; religion B says X, C, and D. Religion A, this time, is relativist, and through dialogues with religion B has come to the understanding that X is True (as would be easy to agree upon), Y and Z are True (they are parts of religion A after all), but C is also True - just not necessarily True for the community of religion A. Religion A still rejects D however. For example, I do not like to anthropomorphize the spiritual...you could say I identify it as an essence rather than a person. When I speak of this essence, I tend to use the singular name, God. Others, when they speak of this essence, may use multiple names to identify different parts of the essence. This may be what they identify with best, but it is not what I identify with best. They are right for them, and I am right for me - we are both talking about the same essence, just in different language. So, I don't think that other religions are wrong simply for not being Christian, but I also don't think that all aspects of all other religions are necessarily right. What I believe is that the best way for one culture to identify with "the essence," if you will, is not necessarily the best way for all cultures to identify with it. What is Truth and what is not Truth can only be found through respectful dialogue among those who believe various things, seeking to understand one another, where the beliefs came from, and what is most proper for those who may believe. This is not evangelization, this is discussion.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|