Religious tolerance and multiculturalism

That isn't really what Christianity is about. Here is a quote from "The Great Divorce" by C S Lewis.

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.

---

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

I think you should go back to the quote by C S Lewis that you are responding to. Do you really think that those who choose hell, (because they prefer a world apart from God characterized by self interest), should be denied their choice and forced into eternity with God?

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This is obviously your perceived view of Christianity but as a Christian it bears no resemblance to mine. One thing you might want to remember is that Jesus came as a servant king.

That is exactly what it doesn't say.

The topic is about religious tolerance and multiculturalism. In my view, Christianity as portrayed by both Jesus and Paul views those of other faiths and cultures as being our neighbour and that we are called to love them. For a simple example just look to the story of the "Good Samaratin".I think that Christ’s message is fairly clear that it isn’t our theology that makes us right with God, but is essentially the condition of our heart. If we look at Matthew 25: 31-46 there is no mention of getting your theology correct in order to be one of the righteous. Also if your read Matthew 7: 21-23 it is clear that there are followers of Jesus that will remain alienated from Him.I believe the consistent message throughout the NT is that the divine will seeks for us to love unselfishly. Part of the human condition is the constant struggle within us between selfish love and unselfish love. I think that it is said best in Micah 6: 8. He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. In Matthew 9: 12-13 Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."In other words I don’t believe that Christianity is as exclusive as is often portrayed. Yes, Christians teach that God in a great act of recreation will bring about the new heaven and earth, (Isaiah 65: 17-25, Ephesians 1: 10 and Revelation 21), and Christ will be its servant King. The Christian position, IMHO, is not that it is only Christians who will be citizens of our recreated world. It will be made up of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists etc, who in their hearts desire unselfish love as opposed to selfish love. This is well portrayed in CS Lewis’ book The Great Divorce. I'll repeat my earlier CS Lewis quote to make the point: There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.I can take quotes form the Qu'ran that also show an acceptance of other faiths.Surah 2 - 62

quote:

---

Lo! those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans - whoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doth right - surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall be no fear come upon them and neither shall they grieve.

---

It also says roughly the same thing in Surah 5 -69The Qu'ran recognizes Jesus as prophet and messiah in Surah 3 — 45 to 47

quote:

---

(And remember0 when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)
He will speak unto mankind in his cradle and in his manhood, and he is of the righteous.
She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what he will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! And it is.

---

This is from this wiki article: Jesus in Islam

quote:

---

In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى; ʿĪs) is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Messiah who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel.[1] The belief in Jesus (and all other messengers of God) is required in Islam, and a requirement of being a Muslim. The Qur'an (Koran), considered by Muslims to be God's final and authoritative revelation to mankind, mentions Jesus twenty-five times.[2] It states that Jesus was born to Mary (Arabic: Maryam) as the result of virginal conception, a miraculous event which occurred by the decree of God (Arabic: Allah). To aid in his ministry to the Jewish people, Jesus was given the ability to perform miracles (such healing the blind, bringing dead people back to life, etc.), all by the permission of God rather than of his own power. According to the popular opinion and Muslim traditions, Jesus was not crucified but instead, he was raised up by God unto the heavens. This "raising" is understood to mean through bodily ascension.

---

Also of course as both Islam and Christianity share with those of the Jewish faith the fact that all three are Abrahamic religions there is a great deal of commonality there as well. As a Christian I can’t for the life of me understand why I can’t share the teachings of the prophet Jesus that are consistent with all Abrahamic faiths with my Jewish and Islamic brothers and sisters. In the end our theologies have a great deal in common. Let’s focus on what unites so that we can discuss cordially our differences. Sure I have a different understanding of the nature of Jesus, but my own scripture, the Bible, is clear on the fact that in the end the point of it all is that we embrace that unselfish love, just as Jesus did on the cross.Let’s look at a couple of quotes of Buddha:

quote:

---

In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true.

---

quote:

---

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

---

These are things that people of all faiths should be able to agree on.The problems arise when we create god in our image and turn him into a being that will bring us power and control in this world. We become driven by pride. Pride is what CS Lewis calls "the great sin".If we faithfully follow the overarching tenants of our faiths we find that religious intolerance is contrary to the faiths that we espouse.

Look at it this way. For sake of argument let us assume that we live in a created world and that there is but one god. This is the view of the vast majority of theists. If we hold that opinion we accept that this one god created all of us. If then, we are all his created beings it makes no sense whatsoever that he would want us at each other's throats.I recently read a book called The Evolution of God by Robert Wright. Wright describes himself as a materialist and an agnostic. He makes a very good case, based on our various holy texts, as well as human history, that our understanding of God is evolving and that as a result over time we are also evolving socially.If it is correct that God wants us to live in harmony I contend that our understanding of the nature of God will continue to be made clearer, and that our faiths will eventually draw us closer together as our understanding of the nature of God becomes clearer. I believe it is a fact that mankind is evolving socially. I believe it is because our world is grounded in divine intent. If however I'm wrong and there is no divine intent and Robert Wright is correct, it still holds true that we are evolving socially and over time are becoming more tolerant. So, in the long run, whatever our beliefs are theologically, there is reason for optimism.In Canada one of our leaders once described us as being a community of communities. I suppose that he saw this as being in contrast to the American melting pot. I think that the result of the Canadian policy is that we have to a large degree wound up with numerous ethnic communities within the broader community across the country just as he envisioned. I'm of two minds about that policy. If these ethnic communities serve as communities for new immigrants to establish themselves in their new country so that they, or at least their children, can later move out into the wider community then that policy should be a positive thing. If however, these communities become permanent versions of their various homelands living apart from the broader society, then I see this policy as negative.The only long term solution is a melting pot but the question is how best to arrive in that position. Is it best to establish ethnic communities or is it best to have policies that encourage immigrants to immediately be thrust into their new culture. Maybe there is a middle ground. Frankly, I’m not sure, although I don’t think our Canadian policy has been all that effective.I also think that we are a people who want instant solutions. There is no instant solution and the best that we can do is to continue to build bridges as best we can. Modern technology has shrunk our world enormously. There are more and more interracial and interfaith marriages. We are able to instantly know what is going on in various parts of the world and if necessary respond quickly. There are so many positive indications of how things are going if we are inclined to look beyond the negative.In many ways I think that we are on the right track, but I believe that in the west we have to be more careful that we don’t become embroiled in the problems of those in other parts of the world to everyone’s detriment. Knowing how to do that is way above my pay grade. However, I think that possibly the key is to look for intergenerational goals as opposed to short term solutions. I suppose the problem there is that our political leaders want to be seen as problem solvers and it will take great leadership at the political level for someone to build the framework for a solution that isn’t going to happen on their watch, or even during the term of their immediate successors.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.