AslansTraveller

David D, I very much like the way you put that . I could get along with that. And yes, I agree it is a matter of where you put your energy: arguing "truth" or respecting one another and working on my own path. And I agree about what faith is: trust. As a matter of fact, I often use "trust" rather than "faith" when discussing or teaching on following Christ because the word "faith" has gotten so much junk attached to it, the main part of which is that the "stronger" your faith, the more power or certainty you have. As though it all depends on how much "faith" we can muster and not on God's grace.

No question about that, you're right. Maybe I'm worrying too much about a distinction I make that doesn't really matter outside my own head. Won't be the first time.

Of all of the 8 points this is the one I have to wonder if I can really embrace. Assuming I understand it correctly. I have no question that other people in the world have different names for God's realm and the ways that lead to it. I have no question that in this world everyone should have the maximum freedom to find and follow those realms and ways. I have no question that all human religions have elements in common and they all have things of beauty and wisdom to offer. I have no question that they embrace their ways with the same faith and dedication that I embrace mine. Where I have a problem would be what seems to be a metaphysical assumption: all ways are true. There are sufficient differences among religions that they can't all be true. They can all be false. They can all be a mix of true and false. They can all be a mix of true and "irrelevant differences". But where they differ and where those differences come on important issues, there must be a decision made. Not by me for everyone, but by each person for hirself. What I want to avoid is the sort of "tolerance" which says "Of course what you believe is true for you . . . because it really doesn't matter what you believe.". I don't think any person of serious faith could see that as a positive statement. It could be dismissive, as in "I don't respect the statements of your religion enough to take them seriously.". I, for one, would rather face someone who is willing to say, "I understand what you're saying, but I think your belief is wrong . . . and here's why." From this can come a respectful dialogue. All too often the "All religions are true" can come from a "I don't care what you believe and don't bother me with it." or "All religions are true to the extent that they share in my (often a form of benign rational humanism or mystical New Age-ism) metareligion . . . and untrue to the extent that they don't." I believe that my faith, in it's core, what C.S. Lewis called "Mere Christianity" is a correct description of reality and how it works. I believe that the faithful of other religions hold the same opinions concerning their core beliefs. I believe that other religions to the extent that they contradict this core, aren't accurate descriptions of reality and how it works. I will no more use this to force my religion on someone else than I would want them to force their religion on me. But I find I must maintain the rational belief that contradictions cannot both be true. Can this shading of the matter still qualify as holding to the Second Point?

Ironcially, even though I'm a theologically conservative Christian, I've always gone to the Sufi's for some of the best and most eloquent words on God as the One-Who-Loves-Us. Why don't we hear more about this voice when people start discussing Islam?