Is Monotheism Inherently Intolerant?

[95thrifleman]

95thrifleman,

It all depends on which Christianity one follows. Scripture tells us that light cannot live with darkness meaning that God's call to His people was, is and always will be, " Come out from among them My people." So, we separate ourselves but that does not mean that we desert them simply because out of love our desire is that no-one perishes and that is why we evangelise to them at any opportunity. We are to love them as we love ourselves yet we are to contend for every bit of Scripture that is denied by them. So yes, there are systems that do not follow Jesus Christ to the letter or who misquote His teachings. These will be the first to be judged on that great day of the Lord.

That's the problem with christianity. You say they misquote, the religious nutters say YOU misquote and it's a game of theological tennis.

If you look at the evolution of christian thought combined with social change from the victorian era to today's enlightened times it's the weakness of the various churches and a post-war secularism that has turned the west into a liberal society not any christian morality.

[basics]

That's the problem with christianity. You say they misquote, the religious nutters say YOU misquote and it's a game of theological tennis.

If you look at the evolution of christian thought combined with social change from the victorian era to today's enlightened times it's the weakness of the various churches and a post-war secularism that has turned the west into a liberal society not any christian morality.

95thrifleman,

Well, first off the church that belongs to Jesus has to be in the same mould as Him. As He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, so too must His church be and that begins and ends with being born again of the Spirit of God whereupon that same Spirit permeates in the same fruit as Jesus Christ. Therefore the love of Jesus must shine forth in every believer in what they do and say in His name. As Jesus said, the margins are tight and the path so narrow that few get to enter so we as Christians have to make sure of our path by emulating Him in every way possible holding fast to His promise never to let us go. The church does not therefore evolve. It cannot if it is to stay true to the Lord why? Because the Spirit of God embodied in each one has to speak the same language and behave in the same way. The alternative is exactly what we can see today in watered down ministries that have forgotten their one important mission on His behalf. His church is still being built by Him, not man and perhaps that is the reason why we are in such a situation as we are today.

[Genghis Skahn]

The church does not therefore evolve

Uhhh, yes it does and much of this evolution has been good, and I'm quite sure that Jesus wouldn't oppose some of the more beneficial changes, such as: no longer punishing blasphemy by death, no more Spanish Inquisition, certain churches accepting Gays rather than say that they'll burn in hell for eternity, adopting native customs into Christianity(evolution) so that non-Christian natives could be more easily converted(it's via this that we have fundamentally Christian objects like the Celtic Cross)--this last one is EXTREMELY important and something you take for granted because it's this flexibility and willingness to incorporate native customs into the religion which helped Christianity become so widespread over time. It's also the reason why Christians celebrate Christmas, since that started as a Pagan holiday--for Christianity to be "sold" to the native Europeans, it had to be THOROUGHLY paganized; the same is true historically for any foreign culture which later adopted Christianity, native customs were blended heavily into their versions of Christianity in order to make conversion to Christianity more appealing. The list goes on with regards to the number of changes the Church has undergone over time.

Also, AFAIK, Jesus and God never said anything prohibitive about making Christianity more attractive to non-believers in an effort to convert them. However, proselytism, the mission of converting non-believers to one's own religion, IS encouraged by "Him"and AFAIK there is no set rules on how this conversion should be carried out(even rules prohibiting the use of violent force to convert unbelievers are not present AFAIK). This is why European Christianity became so Paganized, so that the non-believers could be more easily converted, because one of the unquestionable mission goals of "Him" is to spread "His" message across the world. And you know what they say: you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar...

Besides that, there was the great East-West Schism of Christianity, and then the Protestant Reformation. There was also the American Revivalist movement, which resulted in a whole host of new Christian denominations. These weren't necessarily beneficial changes, however they were major evolutions with respect to the Christian world and the Church(es).

It cannot if it is to stay true to the Lord why? Because the Spirit of God embodied in each one has to speak the same language and behave in the same way.

Except that this is a silly thing to say because who decides what's true to the Lord, and just what is this shared language anyway? If you have a group of priests and theologians, all claiming to understand the Lord's will and possessing a spiritual connection with Him, and they start arguing with one another over which interpretation of Christianity is correct, God doesn't exactly step in to tell them what's what. This very problem is what helped cause the East-West Schism--there were any number of religious practices which the Westerners and Easterners disagreed over(such as the use of leavened or unleavened bread), with both sides claiming that their interpretation of the scriptures was correct. However, these differences were not reconcilable with one another, and you'd be an absolute fool to still claim that, to this day, one side had it right over the other(in your case that would obviously be the Westerners). It all came down to interpretation of scripture, which leaves a LOT of room for debate.

Back to Christianity's ability to adopt native customs to suit it's own needs and meet it's mission goal of proselytism, African Christianity still retains many native elements from pre-Christian Africa. Does that make African Christians any less Christian than a Roman Catholic or whatever odd(almost certainly protestant) denomination "born again" Scotsmen fall under? No. It's also certainly not true that African Christians behave in the same way as, for example, Eastern Orthodox Christians--though both being Christian I'm sure that they do share a number of morals, and do have a shared "religious language" between one another, even though each denomination's "religious language" might vary a bit from one another.

[HannibalExMachina]

as to the habit of cerain monotheist religions, such as christianity, to assimilate aspects of precursor religion. the problem here is in its very natur: it appropriates elements. by assymetry of power.

elements of the precursor are being made subordinate: you cannot keep your gods, but we will make them into lesser parts of our own religion. your gods, or aspects of them, are now saints. no longer divine, but with a certain closeness to the divine. the very image of the virgin mary plus baby jesus has strong resemblance to isis and horus, etc.

assymetry of power is oc an aspect of polytheism too. syncretism, such as the ptolemies merging zeus and ammon, usually serves the power of the state, represented by outside actors. sometimes, this isnt even necessary: the romans adopted gods wholesale, with a mere change of name. still, the appropiation remains subject to the imbalance of power.

interestingly, this is less easy with monotheistic religions. judaism and christianity have been far less susceptible, although even judaism has not been immune. the translation of the five books of mose into greek are a consequence of cultural assimilation, not because of greeks becoming jewish, but jews becoming hellenized. still, syncretism was never sucessful.

exclusivity, and monotheism is extremly exclusive (as in, defining by who isnt part, rather than just who is), does provide a kind of power. if not to be projected outside (if there is a tangible lack of political power), then at least to defend against outside influence. inclusivity, on the other hand, invites outside influence, and thus an imbalance of power can be more dangerous.

so, is monotheism inherintely more intolerant ( i think a qualifier is needed here)? id say yes. exclusivity is depended on a certain, necessary level of intolerance to outside elements.

[basics]

Genghis Skahn,

You raise a lot of good points that only confirm how Christianity has fallen from the word of God into the hands of man. The words love your neighbour as yourself is and always has been the focus of Christianity after loving the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind yet these are only possible if man follows every word that comes from the mouth of God. What is that word and where do we find it? Why from the written testimonies that make up Holy Scripture, both Old and New Testaments for therein we can find what God expects of His church. Were Jesus on this planet as the man He was I doubt very much if He would approve of what the church as a whole has become. Indeed he would probably have the same opposition that He did have under the Sanhedrin. He gave all born again Christians the Holy Spirit to dwell in them so that they could speak with one voice so that the voice never changes regardless of what era we live in. So, by loving our neighbours as ourselves doe not mean that we condone their style of living because as sinners they are all under the same condemnation which we wish and pray that they weren't.

[Genghis Skahn]

You raise a lot of good points that only confirm how Christianity has fallen from the word of God into the hands of man.

Or, you know, crazy thought here, but maybe it was man who created the word of God in the first place? I mean, God didn't invent writing, for one--that was humanity(Hell! The Phoenicians invented the first alphabet, and they weren't even Christian. They worshiped semetic gods that Christianity might have viewed, or still view, as demons). And it was humans who inscribed this "word" into scripture, almost certainly without the help of God or angels or what have you. So by your own logic, before Christianity had even reached your part of the world or achieved the popularity it later would gain, it had been "corrupted" merely by having humans write it down. Of course, if it wasn't written down, then it wouldn't have survived 2000 years now, would it? And then no one would even give a about Jesus--which obviously isn't ideal for God.

Of course, this throws your whole born again ideology into turmoil as well, since born again Christians would NOT exist without scriptures, and clearly if scriptures were man-made(they were), then born again Christians must also be following a corrupted form of Christianity. Moreover, I highly doubt that "born again" Christians follow a more authentic form of Christianity than those Christian denominations which have inhabited the middle east for millennia, such as the Assyrians, Yazhidis, Lebanese, Armenians and etc(none of these consider themselves "born again"). Wouldn't an older denomination be less corrupted by man if it's roots were closer to the time when Jesus himself lived? They certainly seem less corrupted by man than revivalist denominations such as the Pentecosts, who freaking speak in tongues during church...

As well, as I mentioned to you before, clearly "born again" Christians such as yourself don't follow every word of God to the letter, especially since you bashed baptism as a form of spiritual salvation, one of Christianity's most sacred practices which DEFINITELY is included within the category of "God's word" in favor of being "born again", a term which AFAIK(I could be wrong) didn't even exist in the Medieval era or Enlightenment. The modern concept of "born again" seems to me, very man-made and less of a canonical Christian tradition, unlike baptism which is far more ubiquitous and sacred among Christian denominations.

I mean, if God is omniscient and omnipresent, then why did his "word" include flat out lies and fabrications, such as that of the great flood and noah's ark? Granted, the great flood isn't as crazy because it's believed that at one point the Mediterranean was MUCH lower in terms of sea level in comparison to today, and that when it's sea level rose, it possibly caused a destructive amount of damage--but it DEFINITELY didn't happen 7000 years ago(and there is almost a 100% chance that the Earth wasn't created in 7 days...). It took place way before that AFAIK. Moreover, Noah's Ark makes no sense whatsoever as a literal story--2 of every animal? The authors and peoples who propagated these stories weren't even aware of every animal on earth, and quite frankly all macroscopic life on earth would display WAY more inbreeding than what has actually occurred if they all descended from a single breeding pair per species. Now, we can debate all day about how these stories were actually metaphoric parables rather than meant to be factual, but the fact remains that the scriptures contain factual misinformation in them--and if God's word is absolute, and he is also omniscient and omnipresent, then why, even though Christianity DOES put a premium on truth, does his word contain factual errors? Likely because God himself was first constructed as a psychological idea for early humans--a psychological idea which holds importance to this day.

The words love your neighbour as yourself is and always has been the focus of Christianity after loving the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind yet these are only possible if man follows every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Including the homophobic stuff, "All other gods besides me are false" and killing your neighbor if you see him working on a Sunday? Yeah, that statement is just open to abuse, bud. Especially the "all other gods besides me are false" statement is incredibly intolerant, and spits in the face of every religion that ever existed. It's also ironic, because as you know there are the famous "missing years" of Jesus Christ, the time before Jesus was an adult in scripture which we know very little about. Some believe that the New Testaments love, tolerance and spirit of generosity which differed greatly from the Old Testament's violence and brutality may have been influenced by Buddhism, for example. My father LOVES to talk about these missing years and theorize about Jesus traveling to India, learning from the religious gurus and Buddhists in the process, and then taking these new, far more tolerant than what has spawned from Abrahamic monotheism, ideas back home with him. Of course, how believable an idea/concept that is, is anyone's guess--it's just speculation as far as I know.

Moreover, if you think that any non-Christian is a sinner who's going to hell...Well, I quite frankly don't understand your moral barometer. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

The practice of non-violence towards all living beings has led to Jain culture being vegetarian, while veganism is encouraged.

The Jains, unless I'm mistaken, are possibly some of the most tolerant and peaceful members of any religion on earth, and have a huge humanitarian reputation in India(for example, it's a common meme in India that doing business with Jains is simply wonderful, because they're extremely upright and honest people). While the Old Testament preaches absolutely barbaric violence, the Jains, in a religion which predates Christianity's existence, have been famous for centuries for their tolerant and peaceful lifestyles. However, due to Christianity's historic and scriptural intolerance towards other religions, the "Word of God" may count them among the many sinners on Earth, simply for not being Christian. Do you see the problem here? The "Word of God" includes the statement that all other gods besides him are false--so following it to the letter also results in great intolerance, even for people who are extremely peaceful and tolerant.

Here are a number of passages stating that there is only one God, and/or that all others are false:

http://mit.irr.org/28-biblical-passa...e-only-one-god

[Winston Smith]

Genghis Skahn,

You raise a lot of good points that only confirm how Christianity has fallen from the word of God into the hands of man. The words love your neighbour as yourself is and always has been the focus of Christianity after loving the Lord God with all your heart, soul and mind yet these are only possible if man follows every word that comes from the mouth of God. What is that word and where do we find it? Why from the written testimonies that make up Holy Scripture, both Old and New Testaments for therein we can find what God expects of His church. Were Jesus on this planet as the man He was I doubt very much if He would approve of what the church as a whole has become. Indeed he would probably have the same opposition that He did have under the Sanhedrin. He gave all born again Christians the Holy Spirit to dwell in them so that they could speak with one voice so that the voice never changes regardless of what era we live in. So, by loving our neighbours as ourselves doe not mean that we condone their style of living because as sinners they are all under the same condemnation which we wish and pray that they weren't.

It is entirely possible to be a good person without being a Christian. Heck, it's entirely possible to be a good, decent person without any sort of religion at all.

[Prodromos]

Not much is known about Hell, but we can reasonably be sure that it isn't a place, or at least not only a place, but also a state of being, a state of mind, and a state of willful separation from God. Hell is not a place you're thrown into against your will, as a prison is. Whether you'll go to Hell or not depends not on what religion you affiliate with, but on your orientation toward God. One may be a nominal Christian, but if their thoughts and deeds showed nothing but disdain for God, they might go to Hell. Likewise, one might consider himself an atheist or belong to a non-Christian religion, but if their thoughts and deeds betrayed their words and displayed a deep reverence for God, they might well go to Heaven; they worshiped God to the best of their ability based on what they knew of him. It is similar to the concept of the Anonymous Christian.

The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

It is certainly possible to love God and your neighbor without being a nominal Christian. Nevertheless, Christianity is still the Way, serving as a shield against evil, without which it would be incredibly easier to be deceived into being separated from God, such as by supporting or engaging in idolatry, murder, sexual immorality, and a whole host of other evils. You may not be conscious of it, but little by little, you will be separated from God, until eventually you are nowhere near the person you used to be as an innocent child. But generally it is never too late to repent and become pure again. Here's a nice story, of a dying Romanian Communist torturer who repented and was instantly forgiven by his Christian victim. (Starts at 16:10)

The Parable of the Lost Sheep

15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The Parable of the Lost Coin

8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[a] and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

Whether you will go to Heaven or to Hell is entirely up to you. If you wish to be in union with God, he'll grant it. If you wish to be separated from him, he'll grant that as well. As C.S. Lewis once said, "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."

[95thrifleman]

Depends on point of view. According to christian doctrine hell has quite a population of murderers and rapists covered in blood yelling "deaus vult"

[basics]

Genghis Skahn,

It is thought by many theologians that Noah carried written scrolls onto the Ark and if he did and they were recordings from Adam down that places them way before any individual nation took up the pen. At that time there was only Noah and his family alive on the planet until that is his grandson Nimrod set about building Babel after which God confused their languages leaving the original Aramaic in the hands of Shem and his people. The thing is that all the others would have known of the writings brought through the flood and so out of that came all the other religions in the world based on the original. That is why we have so many different gods.

When Adam fell from grace the curse of sin was placed on all his offspring regardless of what they did or didn't do. There is no league for sin. We are all born with it and into it.

[Genghis Skahn]

It is thought by many theologians that Noah carried written scrolls onto the Ark and if he did and they were recordings from Adam down that places them way before any individual nation took up the pen. At that time there was only Noah and his family alive on the planet until that is his grandson Nimrod set about building Babel after which God confused their languages leaving the original Aramaic in the hands of Shem and his people. The thing is that all the others would have known of the writings brought through the flood and so out of that came all the other religions in the world based on the original. That is why we have so many different gods.

When Adam fell from grace the curse of sin was placed on all his offspring regardless of what they did or didn't do. There is no league for sin. We are all born with it and into it.

The problem with that theory is that there are a number of older religions than the Abrahamic ones(especially Christianity and Islam, less so the case for Judaism). So the idea that all other religions are based on the Abrahamic original is rather ridiculous if you ask me. There's really no evidence for it whatsoever. Also, I hope we're talking about Noah and his family being the last humans on earth only from a theological viewpoint and not a literal one, because there's also no evidence for that either. The human species would be terribly inbred if only Noah's family survived the flood.

[Cope]

Or, you know, crazy thought here, but maybe it was man who created the word of God in the first place? I mean, God didn't invent writing, for one--that was humanity(Hell! The Phoenicians invented the first alphabet, and they weren't even Christian. They worshiped semetic gods that Christianity might have viewed, or still view, as demons). And it was humans who inscribed this "word" into scripture, almost certainly without the help of God or angels or what have you. So by your own logic, before Christianity had even reached your part of the world or achieved the popularity it later would gain, it had been "corrupted" merely by having humans write it down. Of course, if it wasn't written down, then it wouldn't have survived 2000 years now, would it? And then no one would even give a about Jesus--which obviously isn't ideal for God.

The scriptural words are of God's choosing. You could, however, make the point that biblical translations may have "corrupted" the text.

Of course, this throws your whole born again ideology into turmoil as well, since born again Christians would NOT exist without scriptures, and clearly if scriptures were man-made(they were), then born again Christians must also be following a corrupted form of Christianity.

See above. Christians do not believe that scripture is "man-made". The typist, or in this case the scribe, is not the author (although confusingly they often referred to as such).

As well, as I mentioned to you before, clearly "born again" Christians such as yourself don't follow every word of God to the letter, especially since you bashed baptism as a form of spiritual salvation, one of Christianity's most sacred practices which DEFINITELY is included within the category of "God's word" in favor of being "born again", a term which AFAIK(I could be wrong) didn't even exist in the Medieval era or Enlightenment. The modern concept of "born again" seems to me, very man-made and less of a canonical Christian tradition, unlike baptism which is far more ubiquitous and sacred among Christian denominations.

No human can adhere absolutely to scripture: it isn't even conclusively understood by those who have dedicated their lives to interpreting it.

I mean, if God is omniscient and omnipresent, then why did his "word" include flat out lies and fabrications, such as that of the great flood and noah's ark? Granted, the great flood isn't as crazy because it's believed that at one point the Mediterranean was MUCH lower in terms of sea level in comparison to today, and that when it's sea level rose, it possibly caused a destructive amount of damage--but it DEFINITELY didn't happen 7000 years ago(and there is almost a 100% chance that the Earth wasn't created in 7 days...). It took place way before that AFAIK. Moreover, Noah's Ark makes no sense whatsoever as a literal story--2 of every animal? The authors and peoples who propagated these stories weren't even aware of every animal on earth, and quite frankly all macroscopic life on earth would display WAY more inbreeding than what has actually occurred if they all descended from a single breeding pair per species. Now, we can debate all day about how these stories were actually metaphoric parables rather than meant to be factual, but the fact remains that the scriptures contain factual misinformation in them--and if God's word is absolute, and he is also omniscient and omnipresent, then why, even though Christianity DOES put a premium on truth, does his word contain factual errors? Likely because God himself was first constructed as a psychological idea for early humans--a psychological idea which holds importance to this day.

The issue is one of interpretation. It is often the case that the most profound literature, including parts of scripture, were not intended to be taken literally. If, for instance, we were to read Aesop's fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant, we would clearly deprive ourselves of its purpose by assuming that the narrative is fallacious (and by extension irrelevant) because the probability of one insect begging another for food is incredibly small. As you know, sometimes we have to look beyond the literal implications of a text to understand its meaning.

Including the homophobic stuff, "All other gods besides me are false" and killing your neighbor if you see him working on a Sunday? Yeah, that statement is just open to abuse, bud. Especially the "all other gods besides me are false" statement is incredibly intolerant, and spits in the face of every religion that ever existed.

Presumably you do not see yourself as incredibly intolerant and spitting in "the face of every religion that ever existed" when you imply that all gods are false. If this presumption is true, I wonder why you then assume that the bible is necessarily intolerant for claiming that "before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me". If claiming only one God to be true is an indirect incitement to violence (or intolerance) then surely claiming that all gods are false is too.

It's also ironic, because as you know there are the famous "missing years" of Jesus Christ, the time before Jesus was an adult in scripture which we know very little about. Some believe that the New Testaments love, tolerance and spirit of generosity which differed greatly from the Old Testament's violence and brutality may have been influenced by Buddhism, for example. My father LOVES to talk about these missing years and theorize about Jesus traveling to India, learning from the religious gurus and Buddhists in the process, and then taking these new, far more tolerant than what has spawned from Abrahamic monotheism, ideas back home with him. Of course, how believable an idea/concept that is, is anyone's guess--it's just speculation as far as I know.

Everyone is (or ought to be) free to believe as they wish: I don't see where the irony is here.

Moreover, if you think that any non-Christian is a sinner who's going to hell...Well, I quite frankly don't understand your moral barometer. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

The Jains, unless I'm mistaken, are possibly some of the most tolerant and peaceful members of any religion on earth, and have a huge humanitarian reputation in India(for example, it's a common meme in India that doing business with Jains is simply wonderful, because they're extremely upright and honest people). While the Old Testament preaches absolutely barbaric violence, the Jains, in a religion which predates Christianity's existence, have been famous for centuries for their tolerant and peaceful lifestyles. However, due to Christianity's historic and scriptural intolerance towards other religions, the "Word of God" may count them among the many sinners on Earth, simply for not being Christian. Do you see the problem here? The "Word of God" includes the statement that all other gods besides him are false--so following it to the letter also results in great intolerance, even for people who are extremely peaceful and tolerant.

Here are a number of passages stating that there is only one God, and/or that all others are false:

http://mit.irr.org/28-biblical-passa...e-only-one-god

Misinterpreting the text (as I believe you to have done) can and has lead to unjustified violence. This is not to say that your interpretation incites bad behavior, only that to my mind, scripture makes it clear that Christianity must be a choice on the part of the believer.

[Davidos]

What really worries me here that you find people literally believe the Bible word for word as it is really written by God.

Anyways right now I am Catherine Nixey book 'The Darkening Age' a time in which Christianity worked to wipe out Roman polytheism. Where they tolerant at the time? No they weren't Was Christianity tolerant during the Middle ages? No it wasn't. Are they tolerant now? Depends on which Church we are talking about. I can speak of Roman Catholicism as I was born and raised as a Catholic but now moving to agnosticism. In its teachings the Roman church claim they respect everyone and every religion but still salvation comes from the church. So exactly tolerant but a far cry from the pre-1960's church.

And what bothers me in these monotheistic religions is that they all claim salvation, but very conveniently especially in Roman church, saints or Jesus himself appear to these holy devout persons who would most of them starve themselves from all kinds of food for very long hours.

[Cope]

What really worries me here that you find people literally believe the Bible word for word as it is really written by God.

If people did not believe the Bible was inspired by God then scripture, and by extension the Christian faith, would lose its moral authority. The Roman church does in effect believe that the Bible was written word for word, by God.

Anyways right now I am Catherine Nixey book 'The Darkening Age' a time in which Christianity worked to wipe out Roman polytheism. Where they tolerant at the time? No they weren't Was Christianity tolerant during the Middle ages? No it wasn't. Are they tolerant now? Depends on which Church we are talking about. I can speak of Roman Catholicism as I was born and raised as a Catholic but now moving to agnosticism. In its teachings the Roman church claim they respect everyone and every religion but still salvation comes from the church. So exactly tolerant but a far cry from the pre-1960's church.

Everything must be put in its proper context. You can certainly make the argument that Christianity has been historically intolerant, but then so were the societies from which it emerged. A more difficult question to answer is: did historical societies become more intolerant when they had been Christianized?

[MaximiIian]

did historical societies become more intolerant when they had been Christianized?

In a lot of cases, yes.

[Cope]

In a lot of cases, yes.

Could we have examples?

[Thanatos]

I think "tolerant" needs to be better defined here, especially in light of ancient societies, otherwise people will be talking past each other, or goal posts quietly moved.

[Davidos]

The Albigensian Crusade, other crusades, 100 year wars, the inquisition just to name a few.

[Thanatos]

The Albigensian Crusade, other crusades, 100 year wars, the inquisition just to name a few.

Except how do you prove that the introduction of Christianity/Islam/whatever else that's monotheistic and its subsequent adoption made XYZ people in ABC region more violence-prone and more intolerant? One can easily point to historical eras of conflict and genocide in areas pre-monotheism. Two random things that come to my mind are the Hundred Warring States period in China and the Punic Wars.

This is what I'm trying to say by stating that there needs to be some kind of definition everyone can agree on, and something that can be quantified, otherwise everyone is just going to talk past one another.