Do All Religions Teach the Same Truth?

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/do-all-religions-teach-the-same-truth_b_2217161.html

Richard Schiffman
Journalist

Do All Religions Teach the Same Truth?
Posted: 12/04/2012 1:48 pm

He cut an exotic figure, the turbaned swami with the princely bearing. "Sister's and brothers of America!" the orange-clad monk began his address to the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago in 1893. Instantly the crowd of over seven thousand people jumped to their feet for a two minute standing ovation.

The swami went on to speak about his favorite theme, the unity of world religions. "As the different streams all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord," he quoted from Hindu scriptures, "the different paths which men take ... crooked or straight, all lead to Thee!"

"After hearing him," a reporter for the New York Herald wrote, "we feel how foolish it is to send missionaries to this learned nation."

Over the next few days, The World Congress of Religions will bring spiritual leaders and academics from around the globe to Washington, D.C. to commemorate the 150th birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda. It will be a chance to reassess the influence of one of the seminal figures of modern India.

more at link

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Religions ...

I'd say yes; cults, passing themselves off as religions, not so much.

[cleanhippie]

7. What is the difference between a cult and a religion then?

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. I really don't know ...

But I'd say ... Religion: Belief structure that is about the beneficial treatment of others, is outward focused and based on something large larger than oneself.

Cult: Belief structure that benefits only oneself, the leader, and/or those that follow that leader.

[cleanhippie]

20. Hmmm, seems like they could be interchangelable. For me, its...

From what I know the difference between a cult and a religion is merely the size of the congregation.

[eomer]

38. When used like that, in a derogatory way, "cult" means:

"6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader."

From dictionary.com.

[Warpy]

54. Actually, I think it's a religion once it's survived the death

of the charismatic leader who founded it.

The ones that die out generally take their sweet time doing it, but they eventually do without the charismatic figure to lead them. It took the Shakers 200 years and they banned sex.

[ZombieHorde]

51. Sociologically speaking, cults are just small religions.

The vast majority of cults are benign.

[putitinD]

126. no difference

[Speck Tater]

2. Short answer: NO.

Christians will insist that since Hindus don't worship Jesus they are going to hell. Muslims will insist that anyone who doesn't follow Mohamed will go to hell.

There are religions that teach individual spirituality, and there are "personality cults". Christianity is a Jesus cult and Islam is a Mohamed cult. they are all about specific "personal" saviors and prophets and not about general principles of individual spirituality. And as long as personality cults demand worship of some specific personality they will never agree with one another.

[Thats my opinion]

55. Christians? No.

Many fundamentalist Christians? yes.
I cannot speak for "Christians" from the inside.
I doubt if you can speak for "Christians" from the outside. Only out of an amazing arrogance.

[Speck Tater]

68. I thought the most basic principle of Christianity was...

... that Jesus was the savior and redeemer and that to be saved one needed to accept that basic principle. In other words, any religion that doesn't center around Jesus Christ as savior and redeemer is a false religion.

Name a branch of Christianity that doesn't belief that.

[jody]

3. Golden Rule is basic in many religions, see below and the Humanist Manifesto

http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III

[NoOneMan]

4. Rather, most religions tell the same lies

We are exceptional. The earth belongs to us. There is more to existence than the summation of all matter and energy in the universe

[tama]

12. Pure Land

There also Buddhist schools about Pure Land salvation through a savior Boddhisatva.

[Fozzledick]

14. Orthodox Buddhists generally consider that a product of "corrupting Western influences."

By which they mean assimilation of the ideas of Christian missionaries.

[tama]

22. "Orthodox Buddhists"?

Links?

Pure Land seems very old concept in Buddhism, and as the similarities with Christianity are striking and if there is historical link, could be also that Christianity is just Pure Land Buddhism in disguise. Dunno.

[Fozzledick]

24. Hmm, a little research shows it's much older than I thought.

I've definitely come across that assessment numerous times, but it may just be the result of sectarian rivalry, or a reaction to more rapid growth in recent times.

[white_wolf]

28. Pure Land is very old, however

that doesn't necessary mean it could not be the result of Christian influence. Buddhism wasn't unknown to the West and Christianity wasn't unknown to the East. I remember reading an article a long time ago about a sect of Christians in India that claimed to be descended from one of the 12 Apostles. They had been cut off from the Christian world for centuries, but the Orthodox Church recognized them as members of the Orthodox faith because they had such similar doctrines. I'm not saying this was where Pure Land came from, but it isn't completely out of the question, unless there's some evidence that I don't know about.

[Phillip McCleod]

43. true much of eastern mysticism can be traced to median empire

the medes included tribes whose priests were called magi (zoroastrian) and budii.

wikipedia says:

According to the Histories of Herodotus, there were six Median tribes[8]:

Thus Deioces collected the Medes into a nation, and ruled over them alone. Now these are the tribes of which they consist: the Busae, the Paretaceni, the Struchates, the Arizanti, the Budii, and the Magi.

[SarahM32]

37. Ann, you are referring to Christian myths.

Jesus of Nazareth was not as Christians have been led to believe --- especially regarding the idea that he was "The Savior." He was, in fact, a son of man and Mashiach (Messiah), which means "anointed one." And as it says in Isaiah, a Mashiach is not the Savior.

Other Christian myths are that Jesus was born of a "virgin," that he was physically or bodily resurrected, and that he will "come again" in person. (And if you are interested, you can read how and why all those myths were established in an article About Christianity.)

Therefore, when you put the myths aside, it is much easier to see how the teachings of Jesus were much like other great teachers, like Gautama the Buddha. And many scholars have pointed that out. Just read Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, by Marcus Borg et al, or Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers, by Thich Nhat Hanh, or one of the many other books on the subject.
.

[Phillip McCleod]

44. yes christian myths

but not just christian myths. these are also the dogmas of most christian sects in history. it would be nice if that were not so, but there it is. who's to say which dogmas are 'true' and which are not?

[rocktivity]

6. Well, each religion teaches its VERSION of the truth

that is, its CONCEPT of it.

The U.S. Constitution says that all religions should be CONSIDERED equal -- but that's more of a concept than a truth, too.


rocktivity

[bowens43]

8. All deity based religions are equally vile, all are cults.....

[Thats my opinion]

58. Fundamentalists are not restricted to the religious.

Anyone who makes absolute statements--like this one-- qualifies.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Absolutism is vile.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. The truth? The same truth? OK: "Give money."

[beam me up scottie]

11. "Spirituality must conquer the West"? Sounds like they all teach the same lie.

"Spirituality must conquer the West," he declared. And he called Hinduism "the mother of all religions," not because he believed that its doctrine alone is right, but on the contrary, because it makes no such exclusive claims. "India alone was to be, of all lands, the land of toleration," Vivekananda remarked. "We accept all religions as true."

An astonishing claim given the profusion of dogmas, rites and practices of the world's faiths. But underneath these surface differences, Swami Vivekananda saw the universal impulse to commune with the Most High. All religions conceive a Divine Creative Principle at the root of things, although they call it by different names he said. They unanimously testify that one can commune with this Divinity through prayer and meditation. And the broad ethical principles to love and to forgive, to be generous and kind are also shared by all faiths.

Colour me surprised.

[eomer]

39. And the broad ethical principles to love and to forgive, to be generous and kind are also shared...

except when they're not. There are Christian churches these days that teach worship of Christ combined with hate of the other, the opposite of the Golden Rule.

[Thats my opinion]

59. And that is the shameful tragedy which distorts what authentic religion is really all about. nt

[eomer]

86. A true and authentic explanation of religion must incorporate all the facts.

Person A: All religions have good as their core.

Person B: Here is an example of a religion that has not good but evil as its core.

Person A: All true religions have good as their core.

This is clearly an example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. A true description of religion must take into account the fact that many religions, historically, have been driven by evil rather than good. Facts can never distort the truth - they can only clarify it.

A truer way of approaching this subject would be to say that we support those religions that have good as their core, manifested in their actions, and we condemn those religions that are driven by evil. At the same time we should also support those secular organizations and actions that are driven by good and condemn those that are driven by evil. Which is to say that we should support good and condemn evil; religion has little to do with it.

This whole discussion of religion seems to me a special pleading by apologists for religion, who want religion to be good at its core, whether it inherently is or not. Instead those who would promote religion should (in my view) embrace the complete truth, in all its positives and negatives, and just say that they support good religion and reject bad religion, while admitting the obvious truth that the latter does exist.

[skepticscott]

100. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head

But TMO and a few other people in this thread will likely remain clueless about the fallacious nature of their arguments.

[beam me up scottie]

120. ^^^THIS^^^

[beam me up scottie]

119. "Authentic" religion is whatever an "authentic" religious person says it is.

You have no more knowledge or authority than any other religionist.

After citing the NTS fallacy yet AGAIN, why should anyone take anything you say seriously?

[ladjf]

13. No. nt

[cbayer]

15. It's so refreshing to see so many respond to the title of the piece and not at all

to the content.

The level of expertise on this matter here at DU surely outweighs that of those attending this conference.

[Fozzledick]

18. You asked a simple question, you got some straightforward answers.

Looks to me like you're ahead of the game.

If you're more interested in discussing the specifics of the article, you could add your own commentary to start it off.

[cbayer]

19. I didn't ask a question at all. I posted the title of an article.

The fact that some don't read past the headline doesn't surprise me at all.

I prefer to post articles without comment so that others can respond, then discuss with those that do. Just my preference and partially due to negative experiences when I have added my commentary to the OP.

[trotsky]

29. And as expected,

you condescendingly insult everyone on the thread whose response didn't please you.

Must be a great view from up there on that high horse.

[Fozzledick]

16. The mystics of all religions teach the same truth - "All is one".

The fundamentalists of all religions teach the same falsehood - "Ours is the only true teaching and it's contained in our scripture which is divinely authored and literally true in every detail."

[cbayer]

17. Agree and I think that crystalizes the message of this article.

[okasha]

21. I agree with your post heading.

Some fundamentalists, however, don't have a scripture, nor do they claim divine authorship--just the authority of their particular tradition.

[cbayer]

23. Agree. Fundamentalism can apply to all who think they have the "one way".

[Fozzledick]

25. I tend to see the central flaw of fundamentalism

as taking literally that which is allegorical, with their rejection of all other interpretations as a result.

Usually it's crystallized as scripture, but I suppose there are always variations.

[cbayer]

26. But even "literal" interpretation can be highly subjective.

What I object to are those that insist they have the one and only answer for questions where the answers are actually not knowable.

Is there a god? gods? Are those that believe any different than those that do not in terms of their basic humanness? Have some had experiences that others have not that are hard to imagine but might be equally real?

In the end, it is tolerance and acceptance that both believers and non-believers should strive for. Telling others that you must see it my way or you are wrong is neither of those.

[trotsky]

27. Who determines what is literal and what is allegorical?

Even the most learned theologians can't agree.

[tama]

31. Each nt

[Thats my opinion]

60. Well put nt

[tama]

30. That's about it. nt

[Phillip McCleod]

42. alchemy taught the opposite

'from the one, many'. our own national motto 'e pluribus unum' was an adaptation of the older rosicrucian doctrine.

all is not one. all is very very many. all is not simple. all is very complicated and without that complexity there could be no order and no life.

[Fozzledick]

45. Solve et Coagula

The true Philosopher's Stone reveals an understanding of the underlying unity of all things, symbolized as philosophical gold.

[Phillip McCleod]

56. hard to say.

my intent was to be facetious and play with the idea. i don't claim to know the True Philosopher's Stone and nor should any other modern. i will say that it's a lot easier to get many from one by division than it is to get one from many by multiplication unless the many that one gets the one from are the same many that one got from the one in the first place. start grabbing random fractions and the result is unlikely to be one.

am i doing it right?

[Fozzledick]

61. Too complicated.

All manifest forms arise from the void.

All manifest forms return to the void.

It's the part in the middle that's messy.

[Phillip McCleod]

65. agreed. very messy

i am reminded of a physics professor of mine describing the 'lifespan' of the cosmos as entropy ending in heat death and homogeneity. meanwhile it explores every possible interaction until every particle has the same amount energy and no exchange is possible because no difference remains.

similarly its the part in the middle that messy and thats right where we find ourselves, eh? on the great real number line of life where its idealistic to expect whole numbers.

[dimbear]

32. Utah's Jordan river empties into Great Salt Lake, never reaches the sea. Take that, Mormons.

Furthermore, a number or rivers simply sink into desert sand, never to be further noticed. Geology my friends, the key to religious knowledge.

[SarahM32]

33. Absolutely, the same basic, essential truth, The Universal Divine Imperative

Last edited Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:30 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a verse of a song that says: "To just one truth do many faiths plead. To just one way do many paths lead." (From the song, Why Fight Over a Name?)

Also, as it says at The Coalition of Jews, Christians and Muslims for Peace, and The All Faiths Coalition for Peace, Freedom and Justice:

We will save the world only by obeying and abiding by the Universal Divine Imperative, common to all religions.

All great spiritual teachers taught it, in one way or another. Thus Jews are supposed to be taught that we should not do to others what is hurtful to our self. Christians are supposed to be taught to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And Muslims are supposed to be taught that no one is a true believer in Allah until he desires for all others what he desires for himself.

Similarly, Buddhists are taught that we should treat others as we treat our self. Hindus are taught that we should not do unto others anything that, which if it were done to us, would cause us pain. The Taoists are taught that we should regard our neighbor's gain as our own gain, and our neighbor's loss as our own loss. The Baha'i Faith teachers taught that we should ascribe not to any soul that which we would not have ascribed to our self. Followers of Confucius are taught that we should never impose on others what we would not choose for our self. Sikhism teaches that you should be a stranger to no one, that no one should be a stranger to you, and you should be a friend to all. Jainism teaches that we should treat all creatures as we want to be treated. Native Americans believe that we are as much alive as we keep the earth alive. Unitarians affirm and promote respect for the independent web of all existence of which we are a part.

The founders of all other religions have taught the same thing in different ways, because the most essential, eternal truth is the same in any language, and at any time. And the founders of all true religions have also said that the search for the Divine and Holy should be not in the world, but within, and when found it brings forth love that is universal and knows no bounds.

These teachings and spiritual values are at the very core of all genuine religions, and they are all about unconditional love, peace, freedom, honesty, humility, tolerance, forgiveness, compassion, charity, and pacifism.

.

[skepticscott]

34. Nice dodge at slipping NTS in there

All "true" religions? All "genuine" religions? So anything that isn't all about "unconditional love, peace, freedom, honesty, humility, tolerance, forgiveness, compassion, charity, and pacifism" isn't really a religion? Wow...that must mean all religions have the same message, since anything that doesn't (which includes the religions that most actual people practice) has been defined out of the picture.

Sheesh.

[eomer]

40. So how do we classify a church that teaches hate?

Such churches (that teach hate) surely do exist. These churches that teach hate would say that they teach your imperative (AKA the Golden Rule) but in fact they don't because the imperative teaches to love all people and to not hate any people.

So how do we classify these churches? Say that they are not a religion? That doesn't seem correct because they do still fall into the definition of the word. Instead should we say they are not a "true religion"? I don't see much sense in that - they are truly a religion, just one that teaches some things we disagree with.

I'd also add that there are people who teach the Golden Rule and who are not religious. I'm one of them.

Between the fact that there are religions that don't teach the Golden Rule and the fact that there are people who aren't religious who do teach the Golden Rule, I would say that the premise of your quote is just not supportable. The imperative is not a universal characteristic of religions. We may wish it were (or, alternatively, wish it were a universal creed of all people both religious and not) but in fact it is not.

[Fozzledick]

46. Misguided or "sinful".

Sin not in the vernacular sense of evil or disobedience, but in the original sense of "missing the mark" or failing to understand.

[trotsky]

89. According to whose perspective?

The Catholic church opposes abortion and the use of artificial birth control. Many Democrats oppose abortion, too. Are they "missing the mark" or "failing to understand?" Who makes the judgment call?

[Fozzledick]

94. According to my perspective, of course.

I'm replying to the question with my own opinion, so I make the call.
Don't you decide for yourself, or do you just believe what you're told?
If so, you should listen to me.

I'm not claiming it to be an unquestionable absolute truth, that would be the error of fundamentalism as I see it. But that's what I believe, and I'm sticking to it, at least until I see convincing reasons to reconsider.

As for the specific issue of abortion, yeah I do think they're missing the mark. Aside from the moral issue of a woman's right to choose what to do with her own life (which is the ancient and unchallenged Jewish position BTW), from a historical perspective it's the modern replacement for infanticide by abandonment and exposure, from a pragmatic view banning it causes the deaths of women from makeshift attempts, and I agree with the medical basis of Roe vs Wade that the parts of the brain necessary to house a human mind have not yet developed at the end of the second trimester.

Of course some people disagree with me, but I have just as much right to disagree with them. That's sort of the point.

[trotsky]

95. I think the point is...

you're trying to have it both ways. You make fundamentalist-like declarations but claim that since you're willing to change your mind (an assertion) you're not really a fundamentalist.

[Fozzledick]

99. Really? What "fundamentalist-like declarations"?

Have I suggested that those who disagree with me should be killed (for their own spiritual good, of course) or damned to hell, or have I simply stated that I disagree with them?

[trotsky]

101. You judge others for "failing to understand"...

i.e., not agreeing with your interpretation. Or are you shifting goalposts here to say that one cannot be a fundamentalist if one does not advocate death or eternal punishment for others?

[Fozzledick]

103. Yep, I think you've missed the mark.

Just having an opinion isn't fundamentalism. Believing that your opinion is divinely ordained Absolute Truth and that you therefore have the right and duty to forcibly impose it on others is.

[trotsky]

106. Ah, so you've invented your own definition...

so you can carefully avoid having it applied to yourself. Clever! Clearly though, someone has missed the mark. Good luck to you!

[Fozzledick]

116. OK wiseguy, whats YOUR opinion?

You don't seem to be actually saying much, so let me ask you.

What is your definition of fundamentalism?

What have I actually said that you disagree with?

And most curiously, how do you propose to express any opinion without being in disagreement with those who disagree with it?

[trotsky]

117. Can we start with the dictionary?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

fun·da·men·tal·ism

noun
1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

There is absolutely nothing in those definitions that says one must believe that one's"opinion is divinely ordained Absolute Truth" or that one has "the right and duty to forcibly impose it on others." That's why I accused you of making up your own definition. Before we go any further, do you agree that your definition was inaccurate? Or do you believe Dictionary.com has "missed the mark", and you have a more fundamental definition of fundamentalism?

[Fozzledick]

118. My my, that's quite a fundamentalist view you have there

based on a narrow literal interpretation of a selected part of a single text.

Of course I was using the term in it's broader, general sense, referred to in definition #3 above, but let's look at a bit more data.

a bit further down on the page you linked:

World English Dictionary
fundamentalism — n
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs

Here's one a little more to the point:

Thesaurus
Noun 1. fundamentalism - the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fundamentalism

And from a more general discussion of the matter:

Some Christian theologians, some fundamentalists, and others pejoratively refer to any philosophy which they see as literal-minded or they believe carries a pretense of being the sole source of objective truth as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion. For instance, the Archbishop of Wales has criticized "atheistic fundamentalism" broadly[16][17][18] and said "Any kind of fundamentalism, be it Biblical, atheistic or Islamic, is dangerous".[19] He also said, "the new fundamentalism of our age ... leads to the language of expulsion and exclusivity, of extremism and polarisation, and the claim that, because God is on our side, he is not on yours."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

If you can't see the obvious correlations to what I've said, well you're just interpreting things much too narrowly.

FWIW, I still haven't seen you express an opinion on the subject of this thread, only take cheap shots at mine. How would YOU classify a church that teaches hate?

[trotsky]

121. Hold on, there.

I'm trying to nail down what YOU consider to be a fundamentalist, versus what others have agreed the word actually means.

None of the items you quoted says ANYTHING about believing one's "opinion is divinely ordained Absolute Truth" or about having "the right and duty to forcibly impose it on others."

This is about correcting your errors first, identifying your ad hoc customization of the word in order to make it fit to your agenda.

Admit your error, and we can continue. Right now you're just jumping around too much, trying to distract from your manipulation of definitions by calling names, and flinging accusations and insults at me. It's making your position look very weak.

[Fozzledick]

122. So you've still got nothing worthwhile to say.

I think I've made myself perfectly clear. You've done nothing but waste my time with pointless sniping. I think that's quite enough.

[skepticscott]

49. If you're going to fling ad homs

like "utter fool" and "troll" like a monkey flinging poo from their cage, you might at least want to have a clue what you're talking about.

Your automatic, contrary, obnoxious claim is apparently that that people should be hateful, militant, dishonest, arrogant, intolerant, unforgiving, uncaring, selfish, and aggressive.

I said nothing remotely resembling that, nothing at all about what people "should be", and I defy you to show us any quote of mine that proves otherwise. I pointed out your arrogance in deciding for everyone what religions have to do and be to qualify as "true" religions or "genuine" religions (makes me wonder what other kinds of religions you had in mind), or what people qualify as "truly religious".

You even claim that is what the religions that most people practice believe.

And I stand by the claim that the religions that most people adhere to don't even meet your personally imposed standard. I defy you to show us that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have both preached and practiced all of "unconditional love, peace, freedom, honesty, humility, tolerance, forgiveness, compassion, charity, and pacifism" throughout their history.

Truly, you're the one who should be deeply, utterly ashamed.

[Phillip McCleod]

41. first religions would have to teach truth

before they could all teach the same truth. instead they teach belief not truth. if truth accidentally gets mixed in sometimes lets just call it an oversight.

[cbayer]

47. What is the truth, Mr. McCleod?

[cleanhippie]

48. The truth about what, cbayer?

[Phillip McCleod]

62. the truth is

i have have no idea what the capital-T Truth is. i rather suspect theres no such animal. then again, i haven't claimed that the truth can be taught either by religions or anyone else. philosophy does care about truth but as someone else said, the truth about what? certainly if i find that a religious doctrine is a lie or slipping half-truths in then i am as entitled as anyone else to say 'hey! that's not true'. that by itself without knowing The Truth is enough to negate the premise that religions teach the same truth or at least that the truth taught isn't The Truth.

[cbayer]

63. I think, then, you may agree with the author's conclusion.

The wrong kind of religion convinces its followers that they alone possess the key to Truth. The right kind, according to Vivekananda, helps to make one more compassionate, humbler in the face of the Great Mystery, and tolerant of inevitable human differences. The fact that so many believers (and nonbelievers alike) fail to live up to these exalted ideals should not be allowed to overshadow the liberating message of Oneness which is at the heart of faith.

"Truth is one, the wise call it by many names," Swami Vivekananda proclaimed in Chicago. More than 100 years later, this is a lesson that we still need to learn.

[Phillip McCleod]

66. not really because as i mentioned earlier

i dont think there is such a thing as The Truth. that doesn't mean there aren't truths, but i don't think "Truth is one". i think truth is messy multiplicity and complexity so vital to the emergence of orderly states in chaos. that i think is the best we can hope for. really i just dont like the phrase "Oneness". it makes me think that surely whoever is using the word must most definitely be wrong.

[cbayer]

70. I guess this could be interpreted many ways.

One way is that he is saying we are all bound by something that makes us one. But also seems to be saying that those that claim to know what it is that is binding are fooling themselves.

[skepticscott]

71. I know it goes against your very nature

but if you want to be taken with any seriousness by anyone here but you-know-who, you might try acknowledging the simple truth that not all ways of looking at something are equally vaid or equally supported by evidence.

[Phillip McCleod]

88. an interesting philosophical discussion is to be had about 'truth'

but i feel like capital-t Truth and assertions of oneness are mere platitudes and cut off serious discussion of a valid topic.

on a sort of related note i felt the same way at the peak of the occupy movement with all the calls for 'unity'. to me we should be seeking the intersection not the union of our diverse points of view. we have lots of common ground but life and people are too complicated for unity. solidarity yeah, unity is wishful thinking.

[cbayer]

91. I'm not convinced that we are talking about different things here.

Perhaps the intersection of all the diverse POV's is where the oneness is?

That doesn't necessarily lead to unity, but it does, as you point out, offer an opportunity for solidarity.

I like that.

[dimbear]

50. An excellent example would be the religion of the Andaman Islanders, a kind of animism.

It taught the tastiness of missionaries, when well prepared. Surely that is universal.

[hrmjustin]

52. What I believe is that Jesus came to save every soul no matter what they believe.

When Someone says are you saved I say Yes I was saved 2000 years ago on a hill in Jerusalem. I do not believe in hell.

[skepticscott]

57. Saved from what, then?

If not being par-boiled for all eternity in really hot, molten stuff?

[hrmjustin]

72. Saved from the nothingness of death. Saved from the darkness.

[skepticscott]

87. Nothingness is nothing to need saving from

Since there's nothing there.

[trotsky]

90. Saved from something your god created?

I didn't ask to be born into a situation that I needed "saving" from. I had no say in the matter. What kind of weird system is that? If I place a frog into a pot of water, start heating it up, but reach in and save him before he dies, am I a hero?

[NoOneMan]

64. What a guy

But seriously, an all-powerful and all-knowing deity couldn't think up a better way to "save" people than bleeding out a flesh-n-blood version of himself?

[Phillip McCleod]

69. you just dont get it. ;)

[hrmjustin]

73. My father told me why not just give every human a boil on their ass for their sins.

The bible says that Your thoughts are not my thoughts, and your ways are not my ways saith the Lord. I do not know the mind of God. Ask him.

[NoOneMan]

74. He sounds like a dick

Not your father, but the omnipotent and omniscient being that chose to bleed out His alter-ego/son instead of thinking up something less bloody and less pointless in that big-ass all-knowing head of His.

Yeah, you're right. Its not my way. I'm not a sadistic (or masochistic) dick-entity that chooses death to impose my will. Frankly, I don't want anything to do with such a creature even if it really did exists in the bowels of hell.

[hrmjustin]

75. Very hard for me to respond to that so I will just say that we all have our own beliefs.

[NoOneMan]

77. Of course its very difficult to respond to the core logic problem

Why would an all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful being decide that a bloody, violent death in a single region of earth be the very best method to "save" people (when he could, figuratively speaking, have snapped his mighty fingers)?

Simply put, any entity that would move in this direction may certainly not be "all-good", as "goodness" is perceived by humans. If "goodness" is outside the bounds of human understanding, then I posit that God is then "all-arbitrary" to a human perspective, and therefore, unworthy of our worship or even trust (as an arbitrary God is not bound by any rules, and has no reason to honor any previous agreements).

Frankly, if anyone seeks to lie in bed with an all-arbitrary God, they deserve to be cast into eternal purgatory on His mighty whim to satisfy His wry sense of arbitrary humor

[hrmjustin]

78. It is very difficult to explain faith in God to someone who does not have it.

How can an all powerful being allow suffering of the worst kind happen here? I do not know how. I have come to the conclusion a long time ago that God does not decide the ways of this world. I do not pray to God for this or that. I pray for the ability to get through this life. I pray for wisdom and guidance. I pray for the forgiveness of my sins. I pray for people I know and those I do not. If God is not there and I die and there is nothing then none of it would have mattered anyway. We do what we do to get through this life.
I do not know why I believe, I just do.

[NoOneMan]

79. If God does not decide the ways of this world, God is not God.

He is an imaginary friend.

The theistic God is "compelled" by His nature (omniscience/omnibenevolence/omnipotence) to promote "Goodness" (that which is in accordance to His will) and eliminate "Evil" (that which is against His will). Your God is either not doing this (undermining His theistic nature) or He has a sick, twisted, awful sense of "Good". In any case, this entity is beyond worship or non-existent.

I do not know why I believe, I just do.

Your culture has told you this is the source of your euphoric spiritual experiences; it has harnessed an instinctual part of your human experience, and used it to reinforce the dominant culture of civilization. You do not need a God or Church to have these experiences, and without them, their "message" (reinforced behavior) is quite different and--in many ways--the polar opposite of what culture is telling you.

[hrmjustin]

80. As I said before My ways are not his ways. I am not God nor can I explain why he does what he does.

[NoOneMan]

81. Yet you worship an entity that has dickish ways, justified with cliches

His ways suck (or he doesn't exist). Lets get over the big guy-in-the-sky already.

Whether you think he's up there or not, if we can't stick your neck out and figure out why he allows/promotes suffering and evil, you likewise shouldn't be able to figure out a reason to keep worshipping the big, all-powerful meanie.

[hrmjustin]

82. What do you believe?

[NoOneMan]

83. Nothing, nor do I find "belief" to be a useful behavior

The affirmation of ideas as truth without evidenciary proof is an a priori "good". Therefore, I tend to bounce ideas back and forth.

I do have an idea that there is far more to the human experience than what the cultural narratives of both science and religion has to offer man, in the tidy boxes it wraps its pro-civilization conclusions in.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -- Albert Einstein

[hrmjustin]

84. Ok I hear what you are saying. I guess we just don't see things the same way.

I would never say that my beliefs are better than other people's beliefs. We do what we can to get through this life.

[NoOneMan]

85. While the act of belief may require a universal lack of reason...

Some are clearly better than others. After all, people have drank poison laced kool-aid for a belief.

[cbayer]

93. Ruh oh. Here we go with the *one way/right way* turn.

What is the problem with letting other people have their beliefs in a deity, even if you have none? Why does it become important to say that not having them is clearly better? Would you not object to and reject someone who said that having them was better?

[NoOneMan]

96. My entire life, people have proselytized to me

And the moment I reciprocate--with the suggestion of no belief--I have suddenly stepped over the line. What a remarkable double-standard.

Faith (affirming an idea as truth without evidenciary proof) seems to be the holy unquestionable, untouchable.

[cbayer]

97. You don't being proselytized to, right? What makes you think anyone else

likes it any more than you do?

It's not a double standard. It's the same standard.

You think you have the way, the truth and everyone else is mistaken, misled or delusional? How is that any better?

[NoOneMan]

98. You realize this entire sub-thread started from a "Jesus died for you" comment?

I didn't like that comment. I responded. Do you think I give a damn if anyone likes my response? I don't.

If that makes you feel mistaken, misled or delusional, deal with it.

[cbayer]

102. I don't feel mistaken, misled or delusional.

and I have little interest in your back and forth with the other member. That's between you two.

I merely objected to your position that what you believe or don't believe is superior. It is not, imo.

[NoOneMan]

104. Your opinion is flawed, IMO

My position does not require that I affirm an idea as an absolute truth without fully supporting evidence.

This is a superior practice in the context of constructing a perception of reality closer to the "true" reality. If you have no concern about having an accurate perception of reality or believing lies, then it is irrelevant (not superior).

[cbayer]

105. And I think your position is flawed as well.

Since we are discussing something that is unknowable, any one who takes the position that what they know is superior to what others know are blowing smoke.

Your perception of reality is different but not necessarily more valid. Calling something a lie would imply that there is a truth.

[NoOneMan]

107. So believing in unsupported ideas as truth produces just as valid of a perception of a reality?

Come on now. You are reaching with that one. No disrespect, but that's horseshit.

Calling something a lie would imply that there is a truth

Sure, but I am not claiming to know that truth at the same time, nor even claiming the truth is knowable.

any one who takes the position that what they know is superior to what others know are blowing smoke

That is a strawman. I am not claiming what I know is superior, but my practice of not believing unsupported ideas as truth is superior in the context of perceiving reality. If I don't believe that there are little green creatures under my bed that give me dreams, without evidence, then I probably have a lot clearer shot at figuring out where dreams come from.

This wasn't about my belief vs theirs. Its about unsupported belief vs ambivalent, agnostic reservation. Theists love to twists their panties in a knot trying to draw false equivalencies

[cbayer]

108. Because you don't experience any support for those ideas does not make them less valid.

If much of the world believes that there are little green creatures under your bad, they may in fact be there whether you can see them or not.

Or they may not be.

What is the harm in allowing others their beliefs, without feeling somehow superior to them, if those beliefs do not impinge on your own freedoms? Who are you to say that their experiences are not valid, just because you have not had them.


If you believe that there are little green creatures under your bed giving you dreams, that does not mean that you will be less equipped to figure out where dreams come from. You may actually spend more effort trying to understand those little green creatures.

Your notion of a god is of a dick that you don't want anything to do with. So be it. You have no more justification for your reality than anyone else.

[NoOneMan]

109. Its not just me. There is no evidenciary support, period. Thats why its called "faith"

And "truth" does not rely on a census. Your appeal to popularity falls flat.

What is the harm in allowing others their beliefs, without feeling somehow superior to them, if those beliefs do not impinge on your own freedoms

Well, that's just the thing. Human tendency to have faith in pre-established doctrine does impinge upon my freedoms--especially belief in economic doctrines (often supported by religious motifs). Humans have spent thousands of years believing unsubstantiated bullshit, wreaking havoc upon the world, which is soon reaching critical mass. My way of life is very much impacted from the human behavior of "faith" (religious/political/economic).

The very pattern of believing an unsubstantiated idea is truth and acting upon it has wrought countless real-world examples of harm to the human condition. But everytime we see something like this happen, humans spin it off with some canned cliche (oh, but He works in mysterious ways/oh, but its beyond my understanding why so many children were gutted and raped/oh, but we can never know the mind of God as the planes crashed into the buildings).

Come on already. Unfounded belief manifests into real-world harm

[cbayer]

110. It also manifests into real world good.

But you have clearly dug out your position. So we may need to just agree to disagree here.

See you around the campfire.

[NoOneMan]

111. And its aggregate effect?

Theism has gone hand in hand with agriculture, helping to coral the masses and propel the infinite growth machine. When we start dropping like flies from what we have done to the ecosystem, we shall see if it all pays off in the end; if it was all worth it.

I have an idea that perhaps the random acts of goodness it inspires are simply to fix problems inherent in our complex system--problems that would not exist without the civilization that theism held together and fueled (so its not "good", but negation). But that is something I cannot prove.

[cbayer]

112. Many churches and other religious groups are at the forefront of addressing climate change

on both local and national levels.

They have also been at the forefront of many of the successes this election season in terms of GLBT equality.

I don't think it would be accurate to call the religious involvement in the american civil rights movement a "random act of goodness".

If you look only for the bad, you will surely find it. But blinders lead to bigotry and bigotry is destructive.

[NoOneMan]

113. The genie is already out of the bottle

What addressing can we viably do now other than acknowledge the impending famine? Theism shouldn't of been so focused at promoting growth and civilization early on, but in any case, that ship has sailed now.

As I asked earlier, "good" or negation of the inherent consequences of a system it helped establish? We can agree to disagree on that I am sure.

[cbayer]

114. I think there are a lot more factors than theism involved in the

promotion of growth and civilization. Science certainly is one. Should we eliminate that as well?

[NoOneMan]

115. Agriculture, religion and technology have created our cultivation culture

I don't view technology as the same thing as science.

[ZombieHorde]

53. From the article...

...Swami Vivekananda saw the universal impulse to commune with the Most High. All religions conceive a Divine Creative Principle at the root of things, although they call it by different names he said. They unanimously testify that one can commune with this Divinity through prayer and meditation. And the broad ethical principles to love and to forgive, to be generous and kind are also shared by all faiths.

I believe exceptions to his claim exist. The most obvious exception is the Church of Satan. I don't think any of that applies to them. Do Zen Buddhists conceive a Divine Creative Principle? Do they really think anything is truly divine? I know Zen Buddhists sometimes use western religious concepts to help explain their doctrine, but I don't think they actually apply these concepts in their belief system.

[Phillip McCleod]

67. true and then there are many pantheistic or animistic religions

either still existent or long-gone like the aztec or olmec religions that have no interest in oneness or unity. they are far more interested in the multiplicity and plurality of existence. the plenum not the unum. i am reminded of the multi-generational 'debates' between the likes of parmenides and zeno the stoic. or aristotle vs plato for that matter.

where one person sees oneness another sees multiplicity and i for one cant say that either is wrong or right. perhaps its a matter of point of view.

[SheilaT]

76. Only if you view religions as another

version of the blind men and the elephant. Each one touching a different part of the animal concludes a totally different animal from the others.

Religion, I suppose, can be thought of similarly: each one touching on some small part of the ultimate truth.

Unfortunately, unlike the blind men cited above, too many religions take it upon themselves to do terrible things to those who do not go along with their beliefs, their version of the elephant.

[cbayer]

92. I really like this analogy and think you are on to something.

[struggle4progress]

123. Clearly not, if by "religions" one includes the various religions that we humans

actual practice and not merely the handful of world religions to which almost everyone pays lip service

[cbayer]

124. My take away from this was that there is a core truth.

He describes it as "oneness", which I interpreted to mean some unknowable that binds us together as one. He acknowledges that the way people describe that or worship that or ritualize that is very different.

[beam me up scottie]

125. Then why are the religious so hell bent on annihilating all other religions?

Most major religions do not teach that the other guys are just following another path to the one truth.

I would love to see a world without borders but I'm not stupid enough to think that's realistic.

[cbayer]

127. Who's hell bent on that? All religious? Some religious?

I know you live in a difficult place when it comes to religious people, but your broad brush assumptions are too inclusive.

I was raised in a church that most definitely felt that there were many paths, as were many others. Religious tolerance was a hallmark.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the pushback from the non-religious became more overtly anti-religious in response to the rise of the religious right. But there are many religious who are also pushing back.

I'm sorry that you are not familiar with them, let around have them around you, but the ferocity with which you attack "the religious" is no better than those who attack you.

[beam me up scottie]

128. Oh brother. Your op said "All religions".

Your insignificant warm and fuzzy little bubble of tolerance is the furthest thing from my mind, so you can quit defending it.

Do you ever pay attention to the world outside of that bubble?


Are you familiar with religious history?

The Crusades?

The Inquisition?


How about more current events?

Genocide?

Ethnic cleansing?

The Holocaust?


Any of this ringing a bell?

I am not a victim so quit patronizing me and open your eyes so you can see the millions of true victims.


Religion is about control and the conquerers didn't gain it by sitting around a bonfire singing Kumbaya.

[cbayer]

129. Of course horrible things have been done in the name of religion,

just as really good things have been done in the name of religion.

Horrible things and good things have also been done that had nothing to do with religion.

You may not be a victim, but you sure behave like one. And there is nothing to indicate that you will become more tolerant of those who are not like you.

So, have at it. Continue to be divisive in an area with there is no need for division.

Enjoyed your post about your boyfriend, btw. Sounds like a great guy. I've got one of those as well.

[beam me up scottie]

130. They are done BECAUSE of religion.

And for the last time, I am intolerant of religion, not religious people in general.

My anti-theism does NOT make me an anti-theist.

I am intolerant of willful stupidity, of anti-intellectualism and the ever increasing aversion to critical thinking.

Humans do not need religion to get along, to do the right thing. Religion all too often just gets in the way.


My boyfriend is one in a million, I love him with all my heart and guess what?

He's catholic.

Severely lapsed to the point of being religiously illiterate, but still.

[cbayer]

131. Your distinction between religions and religious people is not always clear.

You are really fortunate to have a wonderful boyfriend, as am I. Enjoy.

[beam me up scottie]

132. Thank you.

If you think I am unfairly lumping you in with the religionists who are our shared enemy, please just ask for clarification.

Getting the average person to realize what a threat they pose to all of us is extremely difficult, my first weapon is always the hammer.

I promise I don't use it on my allies.

[cbayer]

133. Got it. I will be clearer in the future.

Sometimes you need hammers, I agree. I would only say that you better make sure you have it aimed at a nail and not at an allies head, lol.

You have a good night, bmus.