by jam 9 Replies latest watchtower bible
What is the one true religion? Whichever religion is selected,
all the other religions believe that your religion is wrong.
Therfore, the the universal agreement among all religion
is that they do not believe in each other. Subsequently
all religions agree with Atheists and Agonostics, except
when it comes to their own religion. Since there are over
3000 different faith groups around the world, each religious
person is 99.97% Atheists and Agonostics toward Humanity
religions.
Similarly every Christian is 99.999% Atheist in regards the gods others worsphip or have worshipped. Atheists just believe in 1 less.
Good point.
Whichever religion is selected, all the other religions believe that your religion is wrong.
That's a false dichotomy. Though religions do not agree 100% with each other, that does not mean they all disagree 100% either. I'd suggest that christians average 90% agreement, despite the thousands of distinct Christian sects. We have a common heritage, we have common values. Look for the "truth" in the major things we have in common, not by exaggerating petty differences.
That's a false dichotomy...Look for the "truth" in the major things we have in common, not by exaggerating petty differences.
GL....your are of course correct that religions have much in comon and that ought to mean that religions have historically enjoyed good relations, however we know that not to be true as a rule. Recall that for a person or group to splinter from an existing religion, they had to be pretty passionate about the "petty differences". In many cases lives were threatened or taken. To such passionate people the "petty differences" were what differentiated TRUE vs FALSE religion. Jam wasn't making the false dichotomy, religionists have.
GL; (petty differences) Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity differ
on fundamental beliefs on, Heaven, Hell and Reincarnation to name
A few. In fact in Buddhism , there is no almighty God in Buddhism
and Many religions do not follow Jesus.. I would say these are major
differences. That is the foundation of Christianity, Jesus.
That's a false dichotomy. Though religions do not agree 100% with each other, that does not mean they all disagree 100% either.
Agree. Also, you have plenty of faiths -- Society of Friends (Quakers), the Bahá'í Faith, any of the Universalists, etc. -- who actually build their entire theology around the concept that all paths have merit and no one has the exact answers. Most Buddhists and many Native American belief systems are open to plural truth as well. So the idea that all religions say the others are wrong is incorrect, because some go so far as to say that they themselves might be wrong and that you need to look to others for answers as well.
they had to be pretty passionate about the "petty differences". In many cases lives were threatened or taken.
Sadly, that is true. However, the passionate ones who create the atmospheres the take lives are often the leaders, or those who aspired to become the leaders. The majority of followers, then as now, were and are just that: followers eagerly doing as they are taught. The passionate ones who incite the zealous fervor are relatively few. It took being away from all religion for many years, followed by marriage to a Witness woman, before I realized how just much the various factions actually have in common.
Many religions do not follow Jesus.. I would say these are major differences. That is the foundation of Christianity, Jesus.
Case #1, Jesus: Granted, my comments were primarily centered on Christianity. Christians accept Jesus as fullfillment of Old Testament prophecy, Jews do not. But both Christians and Jews accept the Old Testament that contains those prophecies.
Case #2: Christians, Jews and Moslems all believe in the God of Abraham, though in different ways and by different names.
Even comparing to religions that didn't originate in the middle East, there is similarity.
Case #3, reincarnation: Christians believe in a second life, while disagreeing on whether it is spiritual, physical, or some blend of the two. Hindus also believe in reincarnation, physical reincarnation, until perfection is attained allowing one to join the divine. Christians share the belief that "self" is not limited to our present physical body, that there is a soul, a future life and reunion with God. Buddhism teaches a more figurative rebirth rather than a literal one, but shares the concept of attaining an ideal state, nirvana. Yes, the details and names differ considerably; but the basic premise is similar.
Case #4, right and wrong: The standards for conduct have much in common: you may not murder, lie, steal, or act immorally. You are expected to treat other persons fairly, and expect them to do the same to you. This is the concept of natural law.
Yes, I do think there is considerable agreement on the moral and spiritual levels. These are what I consider to be the important similarities. The differences are not so great until aggravated by man-made passions. That polarized "I'm completely right so you must be completely wrong!" attitude is what I am calling a false dichotomy. As Palimpset said, some faiths do take this to heart.
Sadly, that is true. However, the passionate ones who create the atmospheres the take lives are often the leaders, or those who aspired to become the leaders. The majority of followers, then as now, were and are just that: followers eagerly doing as they are taught.
No disagreement there, however, again what you are saying is that the majority of people do not reflect the views of those that founded their religions, or even the tenets of their religion when carefully scrutinized. This returns us to the issue of whether the people are a product of the religion, hence needing the religion, or if the public face of the religion is a reflection of the people attracted to it, hence not needing the religion. This is being discussed in other threads right now. I happen to agree that without the primary instigators of religion, or innovators if you prefer, the world would be a better place. Perhaps I ought to say without the passionate zeal of those innovators the world would be a better place, so as not in any way sound like I'm fomenting violence.
BTW, the Baha'i also practice shunning ,labeling those that share other doctrine as "Covennant Breakers". And the Quakers have a long history of schisms and rival sectarianism. To counter apostacy their Testimony of Bretheren reads:
"We do declare and testify, that the spirit of those that are joined to it, who stand not in unity with the ministry and body of Friends, who are steadfast and constant to the Lord and his unchangable Truth (which we have received and are ambassadors,) have not any True spiritual right, nor gospel authority to be judges of the Church, and of the ministry of the Gospel of Christ, so as to condemn them and their ministry; neither ought their judgement to be any more regarded by Friends than the judgment of other opposers which are without: for of right the Elders and members of the Church, which keep their habitation in the Truth, ought to judge matters and things that differ."
The Quakers regarded themselves to be a restoration of original Christainity and other churches to be analgous to the Pharisees. A new age of Transformation would occur only when the rest of the world adopted their theology.
SO.. despite the outward appearances of openess to other theological outlooks even these religions are sectarian and officially have the view that
theirs is the Truth while others are wrong.
peacefulpete, I'm aware that the Bahá'í Faith does have rules and expectations regarding theology and personal behavior, but my larger point was that theirs is a faith that incorporates tenets and embraces prophets from many other faiths.
Also, I'm not sure why you're using the past tense for the Society of Friends. Their faith has evolved quite a bit from the 1600s, which seems to be the period you're citing, and the FGC, FUM, and other mainstream Friends conferences today are so open to "outside" views that they even have entire programming available for agnostic and atheist members. What you're describing is not the Society of today.
Either way, my point wasn't to say that they're all lovey-dovey and everyone should go run and join them. My point is simply that not all religions are close-minded.
