Yeah, I reread my post after replying, and I see where I messed up there. That’s the problem with writing on the fly – thoughts sometimes get mushed together in ways I didn’t intend. I had intended merely to make the point that because the Hindus were not Christians, it justified occupying their country and trying to transform it into a Christian one, not as punishment, but as a “noble cause” – which was part of the rationalization for western colonization everywhere. It’s a related point, but different from the “punishing” theme of anti-semitism.

Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes I have to check what I think I wrote in my own mind from what I actually wrote.

The problem here is that once someone has been exposed to Christianity, it’s certainly possible to hold them as culpable for the “error” of not converting. This is how the Jews were held culpable for killing and rejecting Christ. It’s also how the British, say, justified their occupation of India in the name of Christendom.

You seem to be arguing that the British justified their occupation by arguing that the Hindus were culpable for being ignorant or for rejecting Christianity. Perhaps you can provide support for this.

Otherwise there is no connection between you assertion regarding culpability and the British. (Or perhaps any other historical example.)

I didn’t say they justified colonialism as punishment, but as an effort to “Christianize” these heathen cultures. If I mistakenly gave that impression, I both denouce and reject the notion.

Are you unaware that the “white man’s burden” was to spread Christianity to the heathens? Do you need documentation?

1. If we are talking about the non-Protestant tradition and not popular misunderstandings, then only the Jewish leadership that demanded his crucifixion are culpable. It doesn’t matter how things have been twisted by antisemites who do not have any teaching authority.

2. Even if a non-Christian can be reckoned with certitude that he has rejected Christ knowingly and voluntarily, human beings have no authority to punish him for that sin, and the demands of particular justice upon Christians still apply (as well as charity), though both may not yield the same precepts as liberalism.

It’s also how the British, say, justified their occupation of India in the name of Christendom. Since most Hindus were exposed to and rejected Christianity, that strain of thought doesn’t let them off the hook.

I’d like to see a reference for this.

“It is exclusive in so far as it is not possible for someone to love God without grace. Does God give grace and enlightenment so that those outside Christianity nonetheless find their fulfillment? Yes. But this is despite any error they may hold without culpability”

The problem here is that once someone has been exposed to Christianity, it’s certainly possible to hold them as culpable for the “error” of not converting. This is how the Jews were held culpable for killing and rejecting Christ. It’s also how the British, say, justified their occupation of India in the name of Christendom. Since most Hindus were exposed to and rejected Christianity, that strain of thought doesn’t let them off the hook. It ignores the ability of people to love others without adhering to Christian beliefs in salvation. It also ignores the ability of others to love God as much as a Christian loves God.

I’m all in favor of Christians loving God, to be sure, and doing it in their own way. But fundamentalism is always a great temptation – in my view, it’s the epitome of temptation – that steers the genuinely religious off the track and into error – regardless of what tradition they belong to. Others may disagree of course.

I’d agree that one loves God differently than one loves one’s neighbor, even primary, but not that this means love of God is “exclusive”. When we start using words like “exclusive”, I think we are starting down a dangerous road that leads to some very loveless ends. One can’t ignore the terrible examples of this, as when the Churches of all varieties have engaged in pogroms and other anti-semitic campaigns. Likewise with the murderous sectarian strife that has plagued Christendom throughout so much of its history. If such people had placed more emphasis on loving one’s neighbor and loving one’s enemy than on the exclusive claim to truth and God they did emphasize, Christianity would more resemble the teachings of Jesus than the opposite.

Yes, but one does not love Creation or neighbor with the same priority that one gives to God, and in this way, love of God is ‘exclusive.’ No creature should be loved as God should be loved.”

It is the means whereby we are able to love our neighbor.
More accurately, God is the reason for loving our neighbor.

Some aspects of the Gospels certainly do support the notion that Christianity is the one and only possible Way or Truth. Thus, there’s fertile ground for fundamenalism there, if that’s the way one is inclined. But it requires that inclination in the first place, and a desire to carry it out on a theological, social, and political level to make it happen. One can’t just blame the scriptures.

I don’t think this is going to carry weight with any non-Protestant Christians here.

. Which is not exclusive of all the many ways one might love God and one’s neighbor – such as a Hindu doing so through his or her religious tradition.

It is exclusive in so far as it is not possible for someone to love God without grace. Does God give grace and enlightenment so that those outside Christianity nonetheless find their fulfillment? Yes. But this is despite any error they may hold without culpability.

There’s certainly plenty in the Gospels that can be used to justify an exclusive approach. History certainly bears that out. And the history of Christianity has, indeed, ben replete with dogmatic fundamentalists who took these things too far.

But there’s also other interpretations of the Gospels. For example, you interpret “Love the Lord your God…” as being an exclusive precept, but this is only the case if we presume God and man to be utterly separate. The full quote gives an inclusive context: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your mind and your body, and your neighbor as yourself.” It doesn’t pose loving God as something exclusive of loving one’s neighbor, or in opposition to that. It is the means whereby we are able to love our neighbor. In fact, it suggests that if you don’t love your neighbor, you’re not loving God properly. As he said of his disciples, “ye will know them by their love”.

Some aspects of the Gospels certainly do support the notion that Christianity is the one and only possible Way or Truth. Thus, there’s fertile ground for fundamenalism there, if that’s the way one is inclined. But it requires that inclination in the first place, and a desire to carry it out on a theological, social, and political level to make it happen. One can’t just blame the scriptures. An open, tolerant, and I would say more genuinely loving approach is possible, in which one interprets such seemingly exclusive statements as meaning that the way of loving God and one’s neighbor as oneself is the only true way. Which is not exclusive of all the many ways one might love God and one’s neighbor – such as a Hindu doing so through his or her religious tradition.

As for loving others, what Jesus literally taught is to “love others as I have loved you”, which means, unconditionally. Loving others means being able to see Divinity in them. One does not love God exclusively, and then love others. One loves God in his totality, which includes his Creation, especially his creation of other human beings like ourselves. His Creation is not separate from Him, such that one could love God exclusive of his Creation, since we are a part of that Creation.

Also, Jesus never said “God is Love”; St. John did. Granted, one can clearly glean this message from Jesus’ life and teachings, but he reduced the Judaic tradition to two actions (”Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself”), not one precept. And note: the first action is profoundly exclusive. You are to love God with every fiber of your being, and there should be nothing left over for anyone else. The result of loving God is that your love is multiplied to include other people, but first you must exclusively love God.

The main feature of fundamentalism, I’d suggest, is exclusion – both in the realm of doctrinal logic and in human relations. The main feature of Jesus’ message is inclusion, both in doctrine and in human relations. Love, in other words. I don’t think reduction of a message to a few essential precepts is, in itself, fundamentalism. Obviously Jesus himself reduced the entire message of the Judaic tradition to a few precepts, such as “God is love”. The question is whether these precepts are treated as exclusive and hostile to the rest of the tradition, and intolerant of other traditions,, or inclusive and openly disposed towards the rest of the tradition, and tolerantly disposed towards other traditions.