picking the scab of organized religion - again

[anotheranon]

Attn: hadesgirl and patgreene in particular, 'cos I know that y'all will have some intelligent and insightful things to say:

I find this Boston Globe article, Warring With God interesting if only for this one bit:

It was unfashionable of him [General Boykin, who made the "my god was bigger than his god" noises last week] to speak aloud the implications of his "abiding faith," but exclusivist claims made for Jesus Christ by most Christians, from Vatican corridors to evangelical revival tents, implicitly insult the religion of others. When Catholics speak of "salvation" only through Jesus, or when Protestants limit "justification" to faith in Jesus, aspersions are cast on the entire non-Christian world.

This is another reason why I don't identify with Christianity, or with any one faith in particular - I don't think Jesus, Mohammed, or anyone else has cornered the market on The Way, so I find it difficult to accept Jesus Christ (or anyone else) as my personal savior, etc. when other faiths and philosophies have just as much to offer.

So I put it to those of y'all who do adhere to a particular religion - what has your religious leader got that the rest don't? And how do you respond to questions like the above, that accepting a single religious personage as The One is inherently insulting to other faiths?

Disclaimer: Despite my subject line, I don't mean this post to be insulting or condescending in any way - I am genuinely curious, and eager to start debate.

Comments

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

I am not a practiotioner of that sort of Christianity (or Christianity in general), but based on my studies and my experience growing up Southern Baptist, I can put forth a sort of response.

...what has your religious leader got that the rest don't?

Divine inspiration, or even actually being God.

What I mean by that is that somehow, the message behind the faith is expressed as a message direct from the Ultimate Being in the Universe, and who could argue with that? Some part of a religion's message resonates with people on such a deeply-felt level that they take the message of that faith to be the Words of God.

If you believe that God actually made part of himself into a human being and then sacrificed himself to make amends for all the sins of humanity... well, that's a pretty darn powerful message. If you believe that Allah spoke to a man for years and years through the Angel Gabriel, and inspired him to write the be-all, end-all message about How People Ought To Live... well, that's a pretty powerful message, too.

There are large parts of every major religion that espouse tolerance of other faiths, although it may simply be a practical matter rather than doctrine. However, "pragmatic moderates" are less likely to display extremes of commitment, nor are they likely to be as willing to fight for their beliefs (figuratively or not), so they don't get as much publicity or as much consideration. There are also purely mundane benefits to being more willing to fight for your beliefs -- you're more likely to wind up with prestige and loot and power... if you survive. It might even be taken as a sign of Divine Favor, if you believe in that sort of thing.

[anotheranon.livejournal.com]

However, "pragmatic moderates" are less likely to display extremes of commitment, nor are they likely to be as willing to fight for their beliefs (figuratively or not), so they don't get as much publicity or as much consideration.

Very true - moderation is kind of self-explanatory - moderate believers aren't going to go out of their way to draw attention to their beliefs, or attempt to push them on anyone else. I guess as such, it's folks like Boykin who get all the press - people who quietly go to church on Sunday and say their prayers in private don't make for a good story :/