Christianity is the most inclusive faith, despite the fact that it is accused of being exclusive.

I changed the picture. Tat is fine for short, in fact, that's what the name was initially short for, but was simply too common (actual name in some Asia). And Tatarize is fairly unique a Google search for it turns up my information rather exclusively. Now on to the topic at hand. --- I would like to object to this topic on a radically different grounds. That's not what is meant when people say Christians are exclusive. They don't mean to say that Christianity has a high bar for salvation. Most people don't really care what your criteria for salvation might be (bargain basement prices aside). They mean to suggest that Christianity is backwards, anti-gay, bigoted, xenophobic, and intolerant. The idea is if you're not Christian or if you don't believe what Christians believe you're a sack of crap and going to hell. Coming around and offering a debate to suggest that the criteria for salvation is such that 'anybody could believe what you believe and not have to go to hell' is proof of the point, not a cogent argument against it! You are largely admitting that people need to radically transform their beliefs and believe what you believe or they are doomed to hell. That everybody is a potential convert is dishonest and a shows a very flawed understanding of the criticism actually being leveled against you. The real accusation is absolutely valid. Your debate misses the point completely. There are a lot of different brands of Christianity and many specifically insist that if you don't subscribe to some specific set their doctrines then you go to hell. So even professing a believe in Jesus isn't enough to save you from hellfire a lot of the time. You have bigoted people insisting that only Christians are saved or worth saving. That blacks have the Curse of Ham (more of an 1900s belief) or homosexuals are damned for their wickedness. And you have the Christian groups on the inside damning each other for different beliefs. That's what people mean when they say Christianity is exclusive. They don't mean the salvation is too hard. If anything Christians have cornered the market on inflated worthless effortless salvation. I'll gladly win on the merits of the debate as you framed it. Buddhists... I win. --- Now, to the substance of your claims. I see you're conceding. Perhaps I'm misreading that but you seem to agree that according to Buddhists we're all Buddhists. I'm sorry but that's inclusive! Not only inclusive of humans but animals too. That's hard to beat. It may take some time to finally reach Nirvana what does it matter? Eternity is eternity. If it took you 100 years or 100 billion... forever is a long time too. It is more satisfying to think Hitler could spend a trillion years as a cockroach than could have simply asked for forgiveness and be up in Heaven right now greeting people at the pearly gates. You're making a false distinction while being on both sides of it. For one, you want to argue that Christianity encompasses everybody because they *COULD* convert. But insist that because Buddhism already encompasses every living thing on the planet that it doesn't count unless they actually call themselves Buddhist? You can eat your cake or have your cake; not both. Also, the requirement for enlightenment isn't to know everything. Knowledge is not understanding and understanding is not knowledge. Which is why not knowing everything doesn't bother Buddhists (or anybody really, that's trivially true). Besides, the journey is half the fun. --- -"He [a child molester] is only redeemable in Catholicism ... if he is lucky enough to have God forgive him." - subtle... Although you seem to regard Catholicism as not a form of Christianity, even though they invented the religion. It seems remarkably odd to talk of how inclusive Christianity is and yet seem to exclude Catholicism. --- How do you define major religion? There is an old saying that the only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of property they own. Further, I contend that Quakerism is a very real religious group and it's extremely insulting to boot them out of your club for no good reason (but then you're exclusive after all even with the term "religion"). The Quakers kick started the abolitionist movement and lead to the eventual prohibition of slavery all over the world. Some sects of Quakers do adhere to universal salvation and as such everybody is already saved. That is, by definition, more inclusive than one which requires you profess belief in your specific doctrines. But, yes, I could invent a religion where everybody is saved automatically but not only once but twelve times. Don't ask me, it's a mystery. In fact just I have. Win please? -- Next, you believe I mean cult in some sort of derogatory sense. I do not. I mean it as a small religion outside the mainstream usually with markedly different beliefs and little acceptance. There are a number of Christian Cults such as the Branch Davidians. Who formed under a schism with a more traditional Adventist church in 1955. Their beliefs did include that Jesus Christ was their personal Lord and Savior and the redeemer necessary to bridge the gap between the disconnects that exist between man and God. They also thought the world was going to end and that Christ was going to float as the world turns and pull the Christians up to heaven (which is actually a standard Adventist belief). Further, a number of Christians don't believe in the fall anymore or really in a real Adam or Eve. Mostly because the evidence rather firmly contradicts that. Rather they have some vague beliefs and accept the fall as metaphorical. I know it seems a little silly as then Jesus sacrificed Himself to Himself for a metaphorical sin. But, what can you do? Your definition is exclusive enough that though it would include the Waco cult it would exclude a vast number of Christians. You wonder about the accusations of being exclusive? "I cant start Islam Part 2 and call it Islam." -- Why not Ali did? "It is incorrect to say that the umbrella of TRUE Christianity is as wide as you say." - I said the term covered a wide variety of different religions. You listed half a dozen of those included. That's hardly undercutting my claim that it describes a vast number of different religions. Christianity itself isn't exactly a religion other than Christ there's no real firm established rituals or beliefs. -- It's tangential to the main point. --"Using some exclusivist thing the Pope said doesnt help your argument because Christians dont agree with what he said anyway. ...I am a Christian and this is a Christian point of view, bringing the Pope's opinion into it means nothing to me." -- WHAT? Are you saying that "Christians" don't agree with what the pope says? Not even Catholics? Or are you again directly implying that Catholics aren't Christian? That's not being exclusive... the POPES BEING EXCLUSIVE! Lol. I've lived a good life and do good things, I have love, happiness and joy... and yet I'm in the same boat as Hitler because some mythological great great ... great grandpappy of mine ate a fruit? -- That is absurd. Further, as the Pope was Catholic and I'm an atheist he gets to go to heaven (if he repented) and I decidedly don't (no heaven exists anyway). That's just a bid off. Buddhists already include everybody. Universal Salvation believers already include everybody. Further, blaspheming against the holy spirit gets you rather remarkably excluded. As does a quick survey of the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that Christianity is full of crap. I can't wrap my head around some of those absurd beliefs you need to live forever and ever in happyland. So, regardless how low you set the bar I can't believe stupid things. Though apparently I'll get reincarnated regardless what I do. Go Buddhists!