Hi All,

I have asked something similar on this forum before, but I didn't really get the reply I was looking for, so forgive me for trying again.

Those of you who have read my story in the transformative experiences forum will understand where I am coming from.

My question is this. Why are the Israelites forbidden to engage the other religions of their time, while Christianity today is so keen on dialogue. Why was it so clear that Baal was not Yahweh, but today we are moving towards an understanding that Brahman, Allah, The Great Spirit etc. are all refering to Yahweh or the Father. Is this not the same as saying that Baal was in fact Yahweh.

I am not asking these questions because I am against interfaith dialogue, but rather the opposite. I am for it, but cannot find the biblical/theological support for it. I want to feel the way I do, but sometimes I feel like I am being decieved!

Jacques, I'm wondering if you've ever done any kind of biblical studies. A lot of these kinds of questions you're asking could be resolved with a little study of early Judaism and the cultural milieu in which it emerged.

E.g., see http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html for more info on Baal, and you'll see how different this is from the Jewish notion of Yahweh. Also, the Hindu concept of Brahman doesn't equivocate much with Yahweh (Allah is a lot closer).

The primary paradigm is covenant -- the Hebrew people understood themselves to be in covenantal relationship with Yahweh, and there were certain requirements for maintaining this connection (e.g., the Law). Getting involved in other religions (especially their fertility rites) would have compromised the covenant, and this is in fact what happened.

See http://www.pantheon.org/articles/y/yahweh.html for some good discussion of the covenant with Yahweh.

Hi Phil,

Agree with everything that is written above, and also with the links given. I only linked question to Baal and compared it with Allah and Brahman because I have seen this done in interfaith dialogue today (Not to Baal, but Allah, Brahman and Yahweh). I personally do not feel they are exactly the same thing or if they are (as perhaps in the case of Allah) they are still influenced by incorrect understandings of Yahweh.

My question is how is dialogue and acceptance of other religions different as Christians today compared with the dangers or warnings against it in the Old. For example how does the PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE wish Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists well on their various Holy Days and Festivals without placing a stamp of approval on those festivals as dedicated to the true God. I am rambling a bit, but I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

quote:

The primary paradigm is covenant -- the Hebrew people understood themselves to be in covenantal relationship with Yahweh, and there were certain requirements for maintaining this connection (e.g., the Law). Getting involved in other religions (especially their fertility rites) would have compromised the covenant, and this is in fact what happened.

So Phil, are you saying that we are no longer bound by the Old Testament Law and Covenant and therefore we are not stopped from dialogue with other religions? Do the principles of the Old Covenant and Law not carry through into our New Covenant in Christ.

Dialogue isn't the same thing as getting involved in another religion. That was the danger the Jews were having to contend with. But it does seem they did some proselytizing, and that there were converts. Still, it's doubtful that their exchanges with neighboring tribes weren't anything close to what we find in moder inter-religious dialogue. More likely, it was along the lines of what we find in fundamentalistic groups, and it's a stretch to call that dialogue.

quote:

More likely, it was along the lines of what we find in fundamentalistic groups, and it's a stretch to call that dialogue.

Again Phil, I completely agree. with everything you have said. The above statement is where I am struggling because again I agree with you. How did we get from a God directed "fundamentalistic" type interaction - to the kind of inter-faith dialogue that the church approves today.

We still have the wide range of approaches in Catholicism and within Protestantism as a whole. The Enlightenment period in the West helped to open things up a bit, as has post-modernism.

I think Spiral Dynamics� does a nice job of charting the movements from one mindset to a more expansive one. We have a few threads going on this board, and there's plenty of info on the net.

quote:

The Enlightenment period in the West helped to open things up a bit, as has post-modernism.

Phil,

Are you saying then that the Old Testament approach was less enlightened and un-evolved. I have always thought the Iraelites simply tried to do what Yahweh told them (when they were not sinning and moving away from him of course).

what does saying we have evolved spiritualy do to the original revelation of God in the Old Testament. Does it not discredit the Old Testament as some sort of primitive experience and understanding of God that is not on the same level as the new enlightened spiritual thinkers of the 21st century.

In terms of the Spiral Dynamics, what meme were adam and eve born into. I suppose you either agree with evolutionary theory or you don't. I myself have my concerns. For one the idea that we are getting better and better does not seem to fit with the biblical Eschatology of Jesus, the apostles or prophets. I have also seen scientific evidence that seems to poke a lot of holes in the theory and therefore any system built on a foundation that is still ultimately just a theory is a rather wobbley system at best.

But I am open to debate, perhaps I am wrong

That all said, I understand that Adam and Eve had the potential for growth. But does this fit exactly with the models of evolution (physical or spiritual). Adam and Eve seem to be depicted as intellegent beings (although innocent of evil)but evolutionary theory would have them living on pure instict like animals. Which would have original sin carried through to me by the actions of "an animal".

Jacques, the Enlightenment period refers to the movement in Western culture to emphasize reason and science over authority-based systems of truth. (15th C - present). Do a little reading up on it -- wikipedia, maybe.

I'm fine with evolution, as is the Catholic Church. It's scientifically sound, and is a good explanation for how the human body and psyche were formed. I do believe that God specially creates and infuses a spiritual soul into humans, Adam and Eve being the first. Hard to say what their spiral dynamcs sistuation was . . . probably Beige-ish.

I'm thinking that Jim Arraj's book, Can Christians Still Believe?, might be a good resource for the kinds of questions you're asking. See what you think.

Hi Phil,

I know i'm being a bit of a pain, but i am just trying to figure some stuff out.

I have read some parts of Arraj's book recently and I am familiar with the enlightenment, but I am still troubled by the idea that the Old Testament belongs to some lesser age. I would not have a problem with it being so if it was not God who told the Israelites how to live and be. Does God also change and evolve...surely not?

I was under the impression that the debate on evolution was still going on for evolution right and against evolution wrong

I do believe in micro evolution, but macro still leaves me wondering.

What is your understanding of the implications for eschatology...maybe a different thread?

No, Jacques, I don't think God changes, but I do think revelation has been "progressive." God takes us where we are and reveals what we are capable of comprehending. That's certainly true in our individual lives, and I think we can see the same going on through biblical history. That's why the authors of the New Testament works often speak of "times" and "seasons," with the coming of Christ taking place in the fullness of time. Even so, our comprehension and integration of the fruits of his coming are unfolding during this "Age of the Gentiles," an age that will one day come to an end.

Okay Phil,

I think I will lay it to rest now, thanks for the replies. I will continue to think about the subject and perhaps start a new thread (or post on other) when I have walked this thought path through a little further.

Much love and respect in the Lord Jesus
Jacques