I think I mentioned back on this thread that my sister-in-law and her family are Buddhist.  Once while we were all vacationing in Hawaii, my then 4 year old nephew kept insisting that he had been there before.  After several attempts to assure him that he had not, his father apparently had an “ah-ha” and told him, “well maybe you have been here, but just not while you were Michael.” Arrrgh. 

I wanted to say the same thing Peter, “come on, you’ve got to be kidding.”

Wendi

Wendi:

“CS – with all due respect, your opinion about what to call the Dali Lama if you sat on the panel is irrelevant because you’ve made it very clear that wouldn’t sit on the panel.  I’m interested in what people who WOULD sit on the panel (like me) think is appropriate to call him.”

With all due respect, my position is completely relevant if we have Christians who are willing to address a leader of a false religion in a manner that would denote acceptance, approval, or elevation of his position into conflict with our faith.

For everyone chiming in, here’s the big thing: what makes something holy?  The simple answer is that whatever God says is holy, is holy.  This includes all sorts of things like the ground where Moses stood, the Holiest of Holies, and even a kiss of greeting for brothers and sisters in Christ.  Holy does mean something sacred or set apart, but only insofar as it aligns with God’s position on it.

So, it doesn’t matter how the Buddhists use the word, or the contextualization of the word in addressing the Dalai Lama, because if we call someone holy who is not holy, we traipse onto God’s authority and go contrary to His Word.  Is the Dalai Lama set apart?  Yes.  Is he considered sacred to followers of his faith?  Yes.  Should we address him as, “His Holiness?” Never.  That is heretical.

--
CS

ultra1bob,

As Christ-Followers, we recognize Christ as far more than “a prophet who stresses love”. He is the Savior, the Son of God, the Messiah! And as far as Jesus being critical of other faiths. Look how critical he was of his OWN faith, or at least the practice of it. Check out his exchanges with the Jewish leadership of his day!

But we don’t have record in the gospels of his interactions with people of other faiths at all, do we?

So perhaps Jesus is not our measuring stick on that after all. (Perhaps Paul is a better one to follow on this.) We do know about how stern he was with the poor and incorrect practices of his own faith, as I mentioned.

As far as the wealth thing goes? I don’t count any of those “blab-it-grab-it” prosperity teachers as my leaders, and none of my Christ-following friends do, either. In any case, an adjustment is due on that. I agree. But there have always been people who believe wealth is a sign of faith or favor with God, and I suspect there always will be.