
From deisenst@coin.org Wed Mar 28 23:43:24 2001
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 11:59:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "David D. Eisenstein" <deisenst@coin.org>
To: Habadasher Soup -- David Ackerman <david_ackerman@yahoo.com>,
    "Cheryl L. Hill" <cheryllhill@yahoo.com>,
    Jeff Brotemarkle <jbrotema@coin.org>, Kelly Lasiter <kcl78@yahoo.com>,
    Lucrecia Culberson <lculbe6495@aol.com>,
    "Rev. Rhymes Moncure" <RevRhy@aol.com>, Val Hinshaw <vhinshaw@coin.org>
Subject: More thought on religion

Hi all,

Jeff, you wrote, "In my view, any religion that makes it impossible to
understand other religions has bound its adherent to itself.  This does
not destroy the truth of that religion, but it makes it difficult to
witness effectively to anyone of any other faith." 

This is an excellent point.  I believe you are saying that Christianity
makes it impossible to understand other religions.  In many, many ways,
you are very right.  Christianity's God is a "jealous God" in the Old
Testament, and in the new Testament, Jesus himself is quoted as saying
that he is *the* light and *the* way to the Father, and that there is no
other way to the Father than through him.

What you say, "... what ticked me off about the old definition was
the implication that Christianity is the one true religion and all the
others are somehow therefore false."   Here here!!  I could not agree
more!  And your question I love:  "Why can't we simply refer to them as
other religions without labeling them false?"  We can and we should.  I
hear your pain.

I will take issue with one point.  Religions that bind their adherents to
that one way of believing, providing scripture that proves the
exclusionary right for that religion to be right and other religions
therefore to be "wrong" or "false:"  You say that this exclusionary
practice does not destroy the truth of that religion, but makes it
difficult to witness effectively to anyone of any other faith.  I am
wondering if, however, such exclusionary practices, not acknowledging what
could be right or good or wholesome in other belief systems, indeed does
not take away truth from such belief systems?

Christianity holds a patent on God.  And unlike U.S.  Patents, this one
never expires.  Jesus Christ is constantly being crucified, is constantgly
ascending to His Father, and his adherents are constantly saying that
*only* by viewing these sacred events as being the holiest of events and
by putting your full trust in His teachings, can you use the
"God-and-go-to-heaven-when-you-die" device of Christianity's patent;
everything else relegating you to the "devil-and-go-to-hell."  I remember,
Jeff, in earlier parts of our friendship, my being afraid to come near the
Chautauqua Center, where you lived, because of the non-standard beliefs
and religious practices that I sensed were being espoused there.  I
remember that the idea I had at that time went something like this:  To be
exposed to such beliefs would end up being a siren's song that would pull
me away from My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and I would nevermore be the
same, and perhaps even become less holy by so visiting.  I was afraid,
because of some of the beliefs of my Christian friends, that even
beholding such other beliefs would endanger my soul, or that "all those
others out there are just cults," and I would get sucked into something.

I now see this as utter pish-posh, at least with regards to the gentle,
kindly light of Chautauqua.  Chautauqua wasn't the Moonies, and I didn't
have to get my brain-washed and sell literature at airports.  I now see
this as utter pish-posh, as I see Paul's admonition to some of the
followers about "What traffic do you really have with such heathen?"  (I
know this is a terrible misquote).  Well, maybe not *utter* pish-posh,
because, like the Moonies, there are belief systems that *can* suck you
into becoming like an automaton for their causes.  At least Chautauqua and
Christianity (at its best) doesn't do that.  I think our friend Lucrecia
may be able to enlighten us some on at least one of those other "sucky"
belief systems, as I found out last night.

Any religion or system of beliefs that makes it self right to the
exclusion of others, in my opinion, tarnishes its own truth by promoting
such exclusionary ideals.  It is simply without grace.  It makes the
religion far more of a religion of Oscar Hammerstein's and Richard
Rodgers' song "Carefully Taught," than one of enlighted spirituality: 

		Carefully Taught

	You've got to be taught to hate and fear,
	You've got to be taught from year to year,
	It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear,
	You've got to be carefully taught.

	You've got to be taught to be afraid
	of people Whose eyes are oddly made,
	and people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
	You've got to be carefully taught.

	You've got to be taught before it's too late,
	Before you are six or seven or eight,
	To hate all the people your relatives hate,
	You've got to be carefully taught!

	You've got to be carefully taught!

             (Copyright (C) 1949, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein.)

What do you think?
			Your friend,
			David

ps:  Let's not forget that *enlightened Christianity* is not what I  here
am bashing.  What I am bashing is supremism that masks itself as holiness,
in *any* system of religion or human belief.

