All Comments (18)

You say it is irrational to wave the flag.
You think killing children inside the womb, but not outside the womb to be rational. So...you hate our country and its people. I find your anti-Christian religion to be prejudiced in the ugliest use of the word. and therefore, disqualified to write on the subject.

This document is the result of the emergent church movement that says the same thing the world says.

Individuals search for truth. Jesus said He was it. Trust or reject. Your choice, thanks to God.

Hmmmm, no matter where I fell on this topic, I loss respect quickly for anyone making their points by saying....."many Christians", "most Protistant Christians", and other generalities you can't back up. Many of the points this author tries to contribute to these faceless people do not in any way match up to any beliefs by the Christians in my life. Also, just the concept that somehow, even if it was true (which I highly doubt), that popular vote is the way to find truth is something that turns me off from giving any credit to the author. As someone before noted, just the fact that you believe these folks should be jumping through hoops to reconcile with you instead of trying to find truth shows your arrogence and lack of respect for others. Not a great article in my call.....

Dear Dr. Chopra,

Here is what I take away from your post:

(a) You don't believe anyone should make exclusive truth claims, and therefore you hold to a form of religious pluralism (i.e. the notion that all religions constitute varying conceptions of the "Ultimate Reality", or that all are equally valid).

(b) You believe that anyone who does not hold to religious pluralism (i.e. your religion!) should modify their system to be pluralistic (like you).

(c) People who do not hold to pluralism owe you some sort of reconciliation, either because they disagree with you and you can't tolerate it, or because they have voted or acted in the public sphere based on their convictions.

I am not familiar with your works, books, etc. This is the first thing you have written or said that I have really paid attention to. I have to say though that you strike me as being singularly intolerant.

And Dr. Chopra, aren't you being intolerant by refusing to accept Christianity? If all religions are just different paths leading to the same god, why do you exclude Christianity?

"If you want to save the planet, it helps not to attack the bulk of humanity that worships a different God."

So, you admit that you worship a different god than Christians do? If so, I applaud your honesty, but I pray that you and your other "tolerant" friends will open your minds, repent and be saved by Jesus Christ, who is the one and only Savior.

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6.

Paganplace: you missed the point of my post: Yes, I do believe, without a doubt that in order that God's justice and mercy could prevail, He took our awful sin and placed it on his son because if he didn't, we would stand guilty. In addition, I never doubt that God can save anyone but not by watering down the message. I for one was a wretch until I saw myself clearly (from His standard) not mine and cried out for mercy and asked for His forgiveness so I could live with a clear conscience and please Him by loving Him and His creation. We all believe we're good but again by who's standard.

My latest tone poem -

Something from What?

“So what is this stuff that’s seen all around?
So firm, so full, so atomically-bound
A gift from God, the pious would say
Divine contrivance, every step of the way
But does that really quench the thirst of the curious?
A far-fetched proposal that may even be spurious

So science must ask without apology or reserve
Does religion really preach the ontology we deserve?
Yes, physics has quite a different world view
Something quite old and something brand new
Where every article hanging in space
Is seen to be particles, each in their place
And every particle a wave to be sure
Until such a time as we seek to ensure
That the stuff we perceive now closely examined
Are not figments of thought that the faithful imagined

So in viewing Nature’s singular cosmic design
We begin to believe that Nature’s Way is just fine
When the dust finally settled, we found earth as our home
Where the antelope play and the buffalo roam,
And something from nothing is a thought now corrected
A theorem based mainly on the view we selected

The things that were not and are now plainly real
Will soon quickly fade, that’s part of the deal
So pray if you must, and find God if you can
As for me I’ll just sit here, that’s all I’ve got planned.”

Always strikes me as interesting, Angela, how people of your stripe believe that all the Deity in the Universe 'so loved the world' he gave you a book about someone getting crucified, yet think it's so beyond the pale that Deity might appear in other forms and ways to others.

The Evangelical Manifesto has some very good points. However, no government or a group of theologians have any no right to determine what evangelism is, how it should be spoken or changing Christendom. Also, I'd like to comment on some of the statements you've made in your column:

1. Not sure which Protestants have relaxed the revelation of one God.
2. The bible states clearly that Jesus Christ took our sins upon himself and reconciled THOSE WHO REPENT, PUT THEIR FAITH IN HIS FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS and RECOGNIZE HIM AS LORD, SAVIOR AND MASTER (not for those who are still in opposition to Him).
3. Salvation is undeserved favor but again, for those who REPENT, PUT THEIR FAITH IN HIS FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS AND RECOGNIZE HIM AS LORD, SAVIOR AND MASTER (not for those who are still in opposition to Him).
4. Good works does not save you, ONLY FOR THOSE WHO REPENT, PUT THEIR FAITH IN HIS FINISHED WORK ON THE CROSS. Salvation produces good works. Where does our good works come from; not from us. Also, good works can be accomplished with unpure and wrong motives.
5. Not one of the gospels contradict one another; there maybe paradoxes but if you study the bible, you will see NONE of it is contradictory.
6. No where in scripture does it state that the second coming of Christ will happen in our lifetime; it says this generation: go to a concordance or a lexicon and you'll understand what it means.
7. What kind of doctor who has a cure for someone who is dying and doesn't know it; what kind of doctor would he be if he kept it to himself:
I've read this entire document the entire 20 page manifesto and the summary and again, it does have some very important points but I don't hold it up over the Gospels of how we are to evengelize. In closing: Most want Jesus as a savior but they don't want Him as Lord and Master. Ezekiel: 36:24-29; I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God. 29 I will save you from all your uncleanness. Romans 3:10-12 10As it is written "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Mark 13:5-11; 5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

9"You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. Luke 1322-28; 22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.'
"But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

26"Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.' 27"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!' 28"There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

" Garyd:

Godly works are a product of salvation not a cause of it."

Well, that's awfully convenient for any moneyed or aggressive interest that claims to be 'saved,' isn't it?

New Evilgelicals? or New Eviljealousicals? New Catholics? New Hindu's? New Buddhists? New Ju's! New-Islamics? New Pagans? Ne-Witches?

Godly works are a product of salvation not a cause of it. In fact truly Godly works as opposed to mere good works can only be performed by those who were saved from before the foundation of the world and are informed of it.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how there is any joy in a salvation that is constantly dangled before one like some sort of ecclesiastical carrot. If heaven is earned either in part or in whole by works then it is peopled by the same sort of smug and self righteous sorts that give religion here on earth a bad name. If that is indeed the case given me hell i suspect the people there would be easier to tolerate.

Why do you balk at an Evangelical trying to define "Evangelical" in exclusive language? This was the "Evangelical Manifesto" not the "Mainline Liberal Manifesto."
The section on "New Life in the Holy Spirit" as a result of our salvation is not a "duty set down by Christ's example" but a privilege to joyfully follow Christ outside the camp into hard places, ministering to hard people.
In point 6 you seem to imply that the Manifesto either explicitly or implicitly said that the second coming of Christ would happen in this generation, it did nothing of the sort. Where did you get this?
I appreciate your input and hope that you will dig deeper into what Evangelicals are really saying about who Christ is and what He has done in bearing the curse for us.
Respectfully submitted,
Jonathan

If one doesn't accept the seven distinctives listed (and I would argue that the Resurrection should be added without apology), then they cannot rightly claim to be a Christian.

I am not sure who this is good news for except the evangelicals themselves, as it is their intolerance and judgment that keep them dis-connected from their Divine nature.

Those of us who have broken our shackles from organized religion are already on our way in learning how to "worship in Spirit" and not through man's ever-changing interpretation of .
the nature of God.

Points from their Manifesto:

- "Jesus, fully divine and fully human..."
- "The death of Jesus on the cross..."
- " Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith..."
- "New life in the Holy Spirit..."
- "The Bible as God’s Word written..."
- " The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God....."
- "The importance of sharing these beliefs ...."

All this and still no grasp of the most basic element of Jesus' trip to the physical plane.... Let go of the messenger and FOCUS on the message. Evangelicals need to let go of the dogma, the ever transient doctrine that preoccupy the mind with intellectual garbage instead of focusing on assimilating the QUALITIES of Christ...

Whatever thoughts dominate the conscious mind are the foundation of a belief system which dictates behavior... Guiding the mind to understanding and incorporating the essence of unconditional love, forgiveness, tolerance, compassion, non-judgment...
Sadly evangelicals are all still caught up in the head tripping...

Thomas Baum,

That's more or less it. I was primarily contending with Dr. Chopra's assertion that belief in predestination is somehow "quasi-medieval," whatever that means.

I stand with the Catholic Church on the doctrine of predestination, as with all things.

RYAN HABER

You wrote, "The believe in election isn't medieval (it both predates and follows the medieval period, but the medieval period was perhaps the only period in which unrejectable predestination was universally rejected)."

I am not sure what you mean by the above statement, could you explain?

To me, predestination means that God is Omniscient, not that God predetermines what one will do but that He Knows what one will do and there is a big difference between the two.

That is why God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dr. Chopra,

"This seems to reverse the very impulse that brought the religious right to power politically."

That's ridiculous. I have never consciously voted with the political right because it was the political right, or "conservative," and generally view the candidates backed by groups like the Moral Majority with skepticism. But to say that the impulse that brought them to power was a desire to exclude, as opposed to a desire to help America as they think best - you are essentially accusing them of bad faith.

Do you have any evidence for malice on their part?

"By erasing the line between faith and the voting booth, evangelicals absolutely excluded anyone who believes in a secular Constitution and its separation of church and state."

By demanding some sort of line between faith and the voting booth, you are requiring people leave their faith-informed sensibilities behind them, that they cauterize the most important part of them.

"They also vehemently attacked candidates who didn't share their viewpoint."

Like Hillary or Barak, you mean?

"it helps not to attack the bulk of humanity that worships a different God."

How is it an "attack" to assert that one's beliefs are correct, and that contrary beliefs about the same matter are incorrect? That's simple logic and honesty, Dr. Chopra.

"a sector of the American public that made intolerance their marching banner in the past."

Good grief. Taking a particular moral stance is not the same thing as intolerance of persons. You're a doctor. If you take a moral stance that it is wrong to deliberately poison a healthy patient, or file insurance claims for treatments never provided, are you being intolerant?

"Finally, it's worthwhile to take the Evangelical Manifesto at face value."

Why, that's noble of you, Dr. Chopra. Actually to engage opponents in good faith and granting the assumption that they are dealing in good faith.

"Many forms of Protestantism have relaxed the demand to see Jesus as the only son of God, and the ecumenical movement in Catholicism opened the door for other faiths to be given respect and validity."

Whoa! Easy there, Doctor. No Christian recognizes any Son of God but the Lord Jesus Christ; if a person or denomination does so, he ceases to be Christian. Christianity isn't a tattoo or a circumcision, carried around with us for life just because we were born into it. It is a circumcision or tattoo on the heart, carried around so long as we accept it.

The Catholic Church certainly teaches that we ought to respect people of every faith, but it does not, nor has it ever, for one MOMENT, entertained the thought that a truth claim contrary to its own might be valid.

"This point depends on the concept of original sin and the fall of man, which is no longer fully accepted in liberal Protestant circles. The redemption of all human sin through Christ's sacrifice on the cross has been met with widespread doubt, given the fact that the Kingdom of God didn't descend on earth and sin continues to flourish."

Bully for the Liberal Protestant circles. They depart from the Christian faith if they so believe. Our Lord himself said that the Kingdom of God wasn't going to come immediately, and that the good and the bad would continue intermingled for some time.

"This point, which demands rebirth in the holy spirit as the only way to salvation, contradicts the broad Protestant social movement toward good works (endorsed even by Pope Benedict on his recent American visit) and returns to a quasi-medieval belief that the elect are chosen by God and the non-elect damned to hell. Yet if our good works can't contribute to salvation, why should our bad deeds affect it, either?"

Do you know ANYTHING about Western Church History? Do you have the slightest clue about Catholic teaching. We have ALWAYS insisted that doing good deeds as we are able is essential to salvation. Protestants rejected that 1500 years after our Lord taught it. The believe in election isn't medieval (it both predates and follows the medieval period, but the medieval period was perhaps the only period in which unrejectable predestination was universally rejected).

Besides, why is something bad JUST because it dates to the medieval period, as you imply?

"good works follow as a duty set down by Christ's example. Yet many Christians (not to mention many unbelievers) do equal if not greater good for the sick, the poor, and the oppressed without demanding fealty to Jesus in return"

Stawman! How is doing good works in imitation of Christ logically connected with "demanding fealty to Jesus in return"?

You're supposed to be some kind of a guru, Dr. Chopra, but your thinking here is rather shallow.