Introduction-History of Christianity being exclusive

Inclusive Christianity meaning from diff. sources

Arguments of: is Christianity really exclusive?
Keller 3 ways-debunk/expound on how thats not possible
Conclusion: Christianity is the most inclusive institution
This paper will discuss whether Christianity and other religions are inclusive or
exclusive. Specifically, its main goal is to answer the question: Is Christianity really
exclusive? Kellers discussion and debunking of ideas on how to prevent religious
exclusivity in chapter one of __________, entitled, _______ will serve as the guide for
the flow of the discussion. Information from other sources, and passages from the
Bible will also be supplemented to further develop these ideas. Lastly, it will be
argued why Christianity is in fact the most inclusive institution that society has.

The first argument that Keller presented in the first chapter entitled There Cant Be
Just One True Religion is that Religious exclusivity is not just narrow its
dangerous. Many people have problems about Christianitys exclusivity. Judaism,
Christianity and Islam all share the same roots but have different interpretations or
truths e.g. Jesus role as God himself or a prophet. One of the main barriers to world
peace is religion since each faith has their own truths that cannot coexist with each
others. This creates divisions and beliefs of superiority among groups of people
who share different beliefs. How can we break these barriers? Some answers are
outlawing religion, condemning religion and even to privatize it.
Outlaw Religion
Throughout history, there have been many different attempts to forbid religion (or
certain religions) to lessen the divisiveness it causes. However, instead of creating
peace, it resulted in oppression of people who practice the outlawed religions.
According to Alister McGrath, the greatest intolerance and violence of [the 20th
century] were practiced by those who believed that religion caused intolerance and
violence.
There was also a belief called the secularization thesis that religion would die out
as technology advances. In this view, religion plays a role in human evolution. It was
peoples ways of explaining or making sense of the world that they could not
understand. Science blahblah
As ev idenced by the continuous growth and predicted growth of Christianity
globally, this is not the case. Some sociologists also predicted that beliefs would
become more secularized and belief-thin, however, more robust and supernaturalist
faiths that believe in miracles, Scriptural authority and personal conversion are
spreading.
Religion is a permanent and central aspect to the human condition and there is no
reason to expect its role to change.

Condemn Religion
Religion is not going away and its power cannot be diminished by government
control. Can we find ways to urge everyone to see each religion and faith equally
valid? No. Because at the heart of this cause are fatal inconsistencies and
hypocrisies.
There are several ideas like treating all major religions as equally valid and basically
the same thing. The insistence that differences in doctrines do not matter is a
doctrine in itself and it holds its own specific view of God. The proponents of this
view do the very same thing they forbid in others.
Another view is that each religion sees part of spiritual truths but none can see the
whole truth. How could one possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth
unless on has the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality that none
of the religions have?
There has also been an insistence that religious belief is too culturally and
historically conditioned to be true. This objection claims that all moral and spiritual
claims are products of particular historical and cultural moments, and therefore no
one should claim they can know the truth. (if we talk in terms of sociology, hindi ba
totoo naman to? :)) mas qualified ka sakin to speak re the matter haha. I mean yung
developments sa Christianity like Protestants (English reformation dahil kay King
Henry VIII) and Orthodox Christians are basically proofs of this)
Perople believe what they do largely because they are socially conditioned to do so.
Everyone belongs to a community that reinforces the plausibility of some beliefs
and discourages others. Because we are all locked into our historical and cultural
locations, it is impossible to judge the rightness or wrongness of competing beliefs.
However, absolute relativism can only exist if the relatives exempt themselves from
their own razor.
As Berger said, relativity relativizes itself. The social
conditionedness of belief is a fact, but it cannot be used to argue that all truth is
completely relative or else the very argument refutes itself.The reality is that we all
make truth claims of some sort and it is very hard to weigh them responsibly but we
have no choice but to do so.
Some also say that it is arrogant to insist that ones religion is right and to convert
others to it. According to John Hick, once you realize that there are many intelligent
and good people who differ from your beliefs that you cannot convince them
otherwise, it is arrogant for you to convert them or hold your view to be the superior
truth. However, most people who are as intelligent as Hick, do not share his views
and are unlikely to change his views as well.
Many say that it is ethnocentric to claim that ones religion is superior. Yet that idea
of believing that it is ethnocentric is ethnocentric in itself. You cant evaluate a
religion except on the basis of some ethical criteria that in the end amounts to your
own religious stance.
Skeptics believe that any exclusive claim by a religion to a superior knowledge of
spirituality cannot be true but this objection in itself is a religious belief since it

assumes that God is unknowable. It is no more narrow to claim that ones religion is
right that to think that all religions are right. We are all exclusive in our beliefs about
religion in different ways.
Keep Religion Completely Private
Another approach to negate the divisiveness of religion is to allow people to
practice their own faiths but they should keep this out of the public sphere. Rawls
and Audi have argued that religion should be kept out of public political discussions.
There have been bills that called upon leaders to not permit government officials
actions to be influenced by religious beliefs. In response to those saying that this is
discriminatory against religion, they retort its pragmaticism. Public discourse should
be secular, never religious.
Separation of church and state!
Yale argues that it is impossible to leave religious views behind when we do any
kind of moral reasoning at all (maganda atang ibring up ang ideas ni Kant?) Religion
is a set of beliefs that explains what life is all about, who we are, and the most
important things that humans should spend their time doing. Personal worldviews
and narratives are implicit religions. Even the most secular pragmatists come enter
discussions with deep commitments and narrative accounts of what it means to be
human. What may seem as common sense to people can actually be profoundly
religious in nature. Even the call for exclusion of religious views from the public
square is itself religious.

Christianity Can Save the World

Within Christianity, there are rich resources that can make its followers agents for
peace on earth. It has within itself remarkable power to explain and expunge the
divisive tendencies of humans.
It provides a firm basis for respecting people of other faiths. Jesus assumes that
nonbelievers will recognize much Christian behavior as good. This assumes an
overlap between Christian values and any other cultures. Non-believers were still
made in the image of God so they are capable of Gods goodness and wisdom while
Christians also under the doctrine of universal sinfulness so they cannot completely
be good. Thus, there is plenty of ground for respectful cooperation.
Christianity believes that even non-believers can be morally superior to them. Most
people believe that if there is a God, the way to him is through leading a good life.
However, Christianity teaches that we were not told how to live but were saved and
forgiven instead by Jesus sacrifice. It is through admittance of failure and need for a
savior that Christians achieve Gods grace.
All of us have fundamental faith-commitments that we think are superior to others.
Which fundamentals will lead their believers to be the most loving and receptive to
those with whom they differ?

Religious worldviews like the Greco-Roman one where everyone had their own god
led to social stratification and marginalization. Christians insist on one true God but
they were welcoming to those that culture marginalized. Within the belief system of
Christianity is the strongest possible resource for practicing sacrificial service,
generosity and peace-making. Jesus was a man who died for his enemies and
prayed for their forgiveness. Despite injustices done by the Christian church
throughout history, their fundamental beliefs still have the potential to be a
powerful impetus for peace-making.