Pros and cons of attempts at perceiving many or all religions as pointing to the same conclusions

[LuisDantas]

There are always people and, in fact, whole religions that seem put a lot of value in attempting to disregard the differences among religions.

Very often it is presented as an act of good faith, and often enough it is. It is always wise and prudent to remind ourselves that differences of belief are not to be overdone and should not be taken as reason for bitter rejection of other people.

Still, it is definitely possible and harmful to overdo it. We run the risk of attempting to tell people what their beliefs "really are", and that of course is not anyone else's call to make. It amounts to deciding that other people are holding wrong beliefs and should submit to our own judgement on the matter.

Even were that true - and even from a statistical perspective it just can't be true very often at all - the fact remains that it is invasive and disrespectful to reinterpret other people's beliefs without somehow being invited to.

Of course, talking about differences of belief and attempting to convince others of how they should be interpreted is a whole lot better than not even caring enough to do that. Disregard for others' beliefs very often manifests in both overt hostility and silent despisal, and that is no better than the reinterpretation.

But a mistake is still a mistake, and misjudging whole religious communities is not something to be taken too lightly.

I have come to wonder if the existence of so many mismatched beliefs is not in and of itself a source of significant distress for some people.

That would not be absurd. There are significant challenges in attempting to respect and establish healthy understandings with people if we can't even agree on what is worth pursuing in life, both in the practical and idealistic senses.

The need to deal with those challenges is very real indeed. From a global perspective, there are definitely serious downsides to our current failure to so much as be reasonably aware of each other's goals and values. There is only so much respect that can be given when we fail so badly at mutual understanding.

However, there seems to be no functional shortcut. Troubling as the realizations may be that, for instance, some people don't much care for establishing a traditional family, or would rather live a very emotional life than a safe and long one, ultimately we have to deal with them, we have to accommodate for that variety. It is just not possible to truly convince everyone that they should hold values that are nicely compatible with our own, and the attractives of predictability are not nearly enough justification to try and pressure people into claiming beliefs and values that they do not hold. For one thing, that would be demanding people to lie and even to feel guilty for no good reason beyond sparing our own feelings.

So it seems to me that for good or worse, this diversity is here to stay and we all better learn to accept it as graciously as we can. If nothing else, that will encourage people to be true to themselves and to avoid unnecessary conflicts.

On the other hand, we should also be soberly realistic about the true reach of our decisions and beliefs. People are simply way too connected. One may decide not to have children, but only rarely without deciding to deny others grandsons, granddaughters, nieces and nephews in so doing. Other people pay the price for our choices even when they are necessary and virtuous. And we humans have deep social needs: we need to find ways of trusting each other or at least avoiding those that we do not trust. Mutual understanding is very much a necessity, and the anxiety from failing to establish it is all too real and justified.

It is possible that my opinion that those challenges are a major subject matter for religion to deal with puts me at odds with other, perhaps in some senses more mainstream, understandings. There are certainly those who think of religion as the practice of learning what God wants and acting accordingly, instead. I can only try to understand how difficult it must be for them to deal with the variety of religious stances. It is no wonder that they so often end up avoiding, disrespecting or attempting to reinterpret other faiths; respect is not an easy thing to offer. It may well be a right, but it involves accepting to put oneself in a vulnerable position for the sake of others.

It seems to me that ultimately we all need to make allowances to a degree of unpredictability from others, be as genuinely interested in understanding others as we can confortably be, and hope for the best. I don't think there is much of a point in attempting to find out "which belief is true". Our religious duty does not involve finding out what is the true doctrine nearly as much as making our own valid, useful and true.

I guess I am not a believer in "ready-made" religions.

Thoughts?

 

[wizanda]

Think all religions can be seen as part of the same, as long as you've got a large enough umbrella...

Yet when someone only has a very small umbrella, and insist everyone should get under it, that is where problems occur.

 

[Sundance]

Luis, I would like to offer my thoughts.

You are absolutely right, with everything you said. Although, I wouldn't underestimate such an idea, as superficial as it may appear to be. As you may be aware, two related, central ideas in the Bahá’í Faith are progressive revelation and the unity of religion. Though, because of my belief in the unity of religion is the one which speaks more pertinently to the issue you've raised, I will address this one first.


When I say that ‘all of the religions are one’, that is NOT saying that ‘every religion teaches the same things entirely’. No, though some who misunderstand would make that claim that that is what I'm saying. It's not! Rather, what IS being said when I say it is ‘I believe that the origin and purpose of all religions (especially, the major religions) is one and the same’, namely to inspire devotion to those things which are ‘Godly’ (prayer, meditation, worship, etc...), and also to exhort human beings towards righteousness of living.

Bahá’u’lláh puts it like this:

“Is not the object of every Revelation,” He asks, “to effect a transformation in the whole character of mankind, a transformation that shall manifest itself, both outwardly and inwardly, that shall affect both its inner life and external conditions?”

What is your answer, Luis? Do you agree, at all?

Dealing with progressive revelation and those differences, which are very real, between Religions, I believe that they are highly beautiful and must be – to the utmost extent – honoured and cherished. From where they originate, I believe that it's the variances of culture, the Teachings and Experiences of the Founders or Major Figures, and the needs of the time and place in which they had appeared. This is a loose analogy, but I look at the different Messengers and Their Teachings thusly:

(This is an excerpt from an article concerning the Messengers of God and Their Teachings on the website of the Bahá’í International Community)

“Each Manifestation may be seen as a skilled physician. He has a complete grasp of the nature of the body of humanity and is able to prescribe the appropriate cure for the ills of the world—one that best meets the requirements of the time in which He appears.”

Though there will, indeed, be disagreements at times, we as Bahá’ís will never say that other religions are wrong or invalid or that we know better than their adherents about them. We are learners, we are students.

As for the reinterpretation, I would say that while we offer our own opinions about the different religions and the Founders, placing them within an Abrahamic context I contend that there is nothing inherently wrong with this, as you seem to make it out to be. In the end, I leave it to the adherents of those Religions themselves to teach me about their Founders beliefs, practices, histories, and I will adjust my own individual perspective accordingly. Through it all, I'm an eager learner who is not well-learned when it comes to other religions, but that's why I read, study, ask questions.


The beauty, the profundity of such an eagerness for one religion (especially, an Abrahamic religion such as my own) to (albeit, sometimes naïvely) embrace other religions (or aspects thereof) cannot and must not be underestimated or taken for granted. Especially, when you truly consider the gross impacts of the opposite throughout history....y’know?

 

[sun rise]

I have a small book "Oneness: Great Principles Shared by All Religions" which expresses in the title and content how I feel - the root is the same and the branches are varied in how they express the commonality. Of course some focus on differences and others on similarities - that's human nature. I focus on the similarities. For example, see the "Golden Rule" page of http://www.onenessonline.com/ which has quotes from all the major world religions.

 

[Akivah]

Our religious duty does not involve finding out what is the true doctrine nearly as much as making our own valid, useful and true.

Thoughts?

Too many people are not as interested in learning about another's beliefs as they are as changing the other's beliefs to match their own. I agree that religion would be better used to work towards perfection of ones' self instead of foisting your beliefs onto another.

 

[atanu]

As per Hinduism (paraphrased in my words) there is the General (Brahman is the non dual general) and the particulars. The goal is to attain the general that supports all particulars and also constitute the core of all the particulars.

Rig Veda is quite emphatic on this point "Truth is one, sages give it different names".

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Still, it is definitely possible and harmful to overdo it. We run the risk of attempting to tell people what their beliefs "really are", and that of course is not anyone else's call to make. Even were that true - and even from a statistical perspective it just can't be true very often at all - the fact remains that it is invasive and disrespectful to reinterpret other people's beliefs without somehow being invited to.
Thoughts?

Religions have different goals and different assumptions, and I think it is best to recognise and respect the differences. I am dubious about snycretic approaches which invariably gloss over differences and misrepresent individual traditions. I am also dubious about people who claim that their religious view somehow incorporates or transcends all the others, they sound rather arrogant to me.

 

[Vinayaka]

Too many people are not as interested in learning about another's beliefs as they are as changing the other's beliefs to match their own. I agree that religion would be better used to work towards perfection of ones' self instead of foisting your beliefs onto another.

This is also true of those who INSIST without any question, that we're all the same, and true for those who INSIST on making sure we only see differences. The 'unity in diversity' seems to me a middle path take on it. Yes, we're all human, but we're a whole lot of variety too.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am also dubious about people who claim that their religious view somehow incorporates or transcends all the others, they sound rather arrogant to me.

Sounds rather arrogant? ... haha ... Even moreso when they demonstrate time and again a total lack of understanding for some faiths. "Yes, I understand." doesn't really cut the mustard.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Too many people are not as interested in learning about another's beliefs as they are as changing the other's beliefs to match their own. I agree that religion would be better used to work towards perfection of ones' self instead of foisting your beliefs onto another.

I think it's often more instructive to compare the practices that people do, rather than trying to compare beliefs. Try doing the practices that people from other traditions do, it can give a better insight.

 

[Vinayaka]

As per Hinduism (paraphrased in my words) there is the General (Brahman is the non dual general) and the particulars. The goal is to attain the general that supports all particulars and also constitute the core of all the particulars.

Rig Veda is quite emphatic on this point "Truth is one, sages give it different names".

And, yet, as you are aware, the Rg was written before the time of Abrahamic (and other) more modern religions. So as to whether they would be deemed as containing the same truth is debatable. Maybe our sages were just writing about the methods they saw around them at that time in history. Then again, maybe they were all-inclusive, and into the future.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thoughts?

Nukes.

Nobody has thought about these kinds of religions more than you probably, but the Brexit and things said by Nigel Farage have caused me to consider what forces have been unleashed lately upon the human race. The threat of 'Global warming' could be considered code for concern about nuclear glowing. "The Project" almost certainly is. The two concerns go together and are enough to make people do interesting things. What force could cause the EU to slurp up all the European countries quietly and efficiently these last fifty years except for concern about nuclear destruction? If that threat could so consolidate countries and forge alliances, why wouldn't it or similar threats compel someone to want to craft religions that would unify enemies or to re-energize previous attempts? What actions are not justifiable if they are for saving the entire world? I cannot count on two hands all the various master plans at work to deal with the threat of the catastrophic destruction of Earth. To many it feels almost a certainty that its only a matter of time before we and any human descendants are all dead! I understand why almost any action may seem justifiable to some under such extreme conditions, including the creation of new religions.

 

[LuisDantas]

Luis, I would like to offer my thoughts.

I appreciate that.

You are absolutely right, with everything you said. Although, I wouldn't underestimate such an idea, as superficial as it may appear to be. As you may be aware, two related, central ideas in the Bahá’í Faith are progressive revelation and the unity of religion. Though, because of my belief in the unity of religion is the one which speaks more pertinently to the issue you've raised, I will address this one first.


When I say that ‘all of the religions are one’, that is NOT saying that ‘every religion teaches the same things entirely’. No, though some who misunderstand would make that claim that that is what I'm saying. It's not! Rather, what IS being said when I say it is ‘I believe that the origin and purpose of all religions (especially, the major religions) is one and the same’, namely to inspire devotion to those things which are ‘Godly’ (prayer, meditation, worship, etc...), and also to exhort human beings towards righteousness of living.

That is admirable enough in and of itself. But it still needs to deal with the actual diversity of beliefs.

From what I have seen, despite generally very good intentions, the Bahai Faith tends to have a very difficult time with non-Abrahamics beliefs.

In my opinion, it fails to fully consider the implications of the diversity that we find. While attaining mutual understand and respect among all beliefs is certainly a worthwhile goal, it is not at all likely to result in the degree of widespread agreement that would be necessary, for instance, for making all religions theistic.

Bahá’u’lláh puts it like this:

“Is not the object of every Revelation,” He asks, “to effect a transformation in the whole character of mankind, a transformation that shall manifest itself, both outwardly and inwardly, that shall affect both its inner life and external conditions?”

What is your answer, Luis? Do you agree, at all?

I don't think I can opine, DJ. I don't adhere to the idea of Revelations as described above.

It seems to me that religious advancement tends to be somewhat more disperse and gradual than Bahá’u’lláh makes it to be.

Furthermore, I think it is fairly dangerous to make too much of specific religious teachers. That tends to create the appearance of united undertanding without creating the corresponding reality, and those mistakes have serious consequences.

Dealing with progressive revelation and those differences, which are very real, between Religions, I believe that they are highly beautiful and must be – to the utmost extent – honoured and cherished. From where they originate, I believe that it's the variances of culture, the Teachings and Experiences of the Founders or Major Figures, and the needs of the time and place in which they had appeared.

I have no issue with that idea, which is in fact quite sensible, even beautiful.

But I do find it too restrictive to be of much use beyond an Abrahamic framework. It does not seem to quite accept that there are legitimate non-Abrahamic religions.

This is a loose analogy, but I look at the different Messengers and Their Teachings thusly:

(This is an excerpt from an article concerning the Messengers of God and Their Teachings on the website of the Bahá’í International Community)

“Each Manifestation may be seen as a skilled physician. He has a complete grasp of the nature of the body of humanity and is able to prescribe the appropriate cure for the ills of the world—one that best meets the requirements of the time in which He appears.”

Fair enough.

Though there will, indeed, be disagreements at times, we as Bahá’ís will never say that other religions are wrong or invalid or that we know better than their adherents about them. We are learners, we are students.

Don't you think that puts you in something of a difficult position? Not all religions are well-cared, honest or even sane. Forbidding yourselves of acknowledging that hurts your intent of honoring other religions. Branding every religion as valid sight unseen cheapens your efforts and your respect.

Or to put it in another way: it is all right and laudable to be respectful. But respect is supposed to have meaning, to be either earned or undeserved (when given as an act of love and faith).

We are entitled to disapprove of other people's beliefs, justifiably or otherwise, and to call them on that. Among other reasons, because that is necessary for them and for ourselves to learn better.

As for the reinterpretation, I would say that while we offer our own opinions about the different religions and the Founders, placing them within an Abrahamic context I contend that there is nothing inherently wrong with this, as you seem to make it out to be.

It seems to be that you are betting far too much on the applicability of the Abrahamic expectations, then.

Even leaving aside the theological questions that raises, it should be clear that in so doing you run a serious risk of creating innacurate representations of other beliefs and mistaking those for the real things. That may become very troublesome; the worst misunderstandings tend to be those that one fails to notice.

In the end, I leave it to the adherents of those Religions themselves to teach me about their Founders beliefs, practices, histories, and I will adjust my own individual perspective accordingly.

A laudable intent. But also no small challenge, and it is unclear whether you will be open enough to accept what they say when it conflicts with your expectations of monotheistic, Abrahamic parameters.

Through it all, I'm an eager learner who is not well-learned when it comes to other religions, but that's why I read, study, ask questions.

That is certainly welcome.

The beauty, the profundity of such an eagerness for one religion (especially, an Abrahamic religion such as my own) to (albeit, sometimes naïvely) embrace other religions (or aspects thereof) cannot and must not be underestimated or taken for granted.

I so agree!

Especially, when you truly consider the gross impacts of the opposite throughout history....y’know?

Agreed. Still, as I hope to have made clear in the OP, the opposite is not always, automatically a good thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nukes.

Nobody has thought about these kinds of religions more than you probably, but the Brexit and things said by Nigel Farage have caused me to consider what forces have been unleashed lately upon the human race. The threat of 'Global warming' could be considered code for concern about nuclear glowing. "The Project" almost certainly is. The two concerns go together and are enough to make people do interesting things. What force could cause the EU to slurp up all the European countries quietly and efficiently these last fifty years except for concern about nuclear destruction? If that threat could so consolidate countries and forge alliances, why wouldn't it or similar threats compel someone to want to craft religions that would unify enemies or to re-energize previous attempts? What actions are not justifiable if they are for saving the entire world? I cannot count on two hands all the various master plans at work to deal with the threat of the catastrophic destruction of Earth. To many it feels almost a certainty that its only a matter of time before we and any human descendants are all dead! I understand why almost any action may seem justifiable to some under such extreme conditions, including the creation of new religions.

Excuse me? I feel like I bought the digest version of some text well above my pay grade.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I view it in the same way as I view the Hero with a Thousand Faces monomyth, really. It assumes a lot and works very hard to shoehorn a variety of backgrounds, feelings, intentions and symbology into one neat little box. And tries its very hardest to ignore clear examples to the contrary.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Excuse me? I feel like I bought the digest version of some text well above my pay grade.

Sorry for that. Nuclear Weapons and the threat of global destruction may be one of the forces pressing the creation of new religions (that aim to unite other religions), or it may be one of the forces which energize new religions (which aim to unite other religions).

 

[Vinayaka]

I think it's often more instructive to compare the practices that people do, rather than trying to compare beliefs. Try doing the practices that people from other traditions do, it can give a better insight.

haha ... Yes I invite anyone to come join me in my kavadi celebration next February. Then we'll really see if they feel it's all same, all same. (I can't imagine.)

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry for that. Nuclear Weapons and the threat of global destruction may be one of the forces pressing the creation of new religions (that aim to unite other religions), or it may be one of the forces which energize new religions (which aim to unite other religions).

Perhaps. But if so, I don't think it has happened in any noticeable way.

Most significant new religions go back to the late 19th century. I believe that is a result of a growing awareness of our anthropological diversity, due to improvements in transportation and communication. And sure enough, there was a lot ot attempt at redefining "foreign" beliefs so that they fit confortable, familiar molds. The Bahai Faith is from that time period, as are a lot of occultist movements, as well as Allan Kardec's Spiritism and H.P. Blavatsky's... writings. Yes, writings is a good word to use here. All of those fell prey to some measure or another of deciding that they knew what other religions were all about without often having the goods to show.

If anything, it seems to me that facing our vulnerability and our mortality as a species may have boldened some extreme forms of older religions. But I suppose it also feeds the need to state that we know what others believe in. Certainty is reassuring, even and perhaps mainly when it is unwarranted.

 

[Sundance]

I appreciate that.


That is admirable enough in and of itself. But it still needs to deal with the actual diversity of beliefs.

It does, in my opinion.

From what I have seen, despite generally very good intentions, the Bahai Faith tends to have a very difficult time with non-Abrahamics beliefs.

I would like an explanation of how this so.

In my opinion, it fails to fully consider the implications of the diversity that we find. While attaining mutual understand and respect among all beliefs is certainly a worthwhile goal, it is not at all likely to result in the degree of widespread agreement that would be necessary, for instance, for making all religions theistic.

I don't think I can opine, DJ. I don't adhere to the idea of Revelations as described above.

Translate it into terms which work for you.

It seems to me that religious advancement tends to be somewhat more disperse and gradual than Bahá’u’lláh makes it to be.

I agree, but He does give us a starting point.

Furthermore, I think it is fairly dangerous to make too much of specific religious teachers. That tends to create the appearance of united undertanding without creating the corresponding reality, and those mistakes have serious consequences.

I cannot disagree with you, here.

I have no issue with that idea, which is in fact quite sensible, even beautiful.

But I do find it too restrictive to be of much use beyond an Abrahamic framework. It does not seem to quite accept that there are legitimate non-Abrahamic religions.

I understand why you feel this way, but rest assured, the Bahá’í Faith does offer a different framework, a solid basis for accepting non-Abrahamic religions.

Don't you think that puts you in something of a difficult position? Not all religions are well-cared, honest or even sane. Forbidding yourselves of acknowledging that hurts your intent of honoring other religions. Branding every religion as valid sight unseen cheapens your efforts and your respect.

Or to put it in another way: it is all right and laudable to be respectful. But respect is supposed to have meaning, to be either earned or undeserved (when given as an act of love and faith).

We are entitled to disapprove of other people's beliefs, justifiably or otherwise, and to call them on that. Among other reasons, because that is necessary for them and for ourselves to learn better.

Bahá’u’lláh does teach that there are a few “religions” which are the results of human perversity.

It seems to be that you are betting far too much on the applicability of the Abrahamic expectations, then.

Even leaving aside the theological questions that raises, it should be clear that in so doing you run a serious risk of creating innacurate representations of other beliefs and mistaking those for the real things. That may become very troublesome; the worst misunderstandings tend to be those that one fails to notice.

Luis, I don't think you truly understand. Although I absolutely agree with you, once again, that's why the Bahá’í Faith teaches us to study other religions. So that we, as Bahá’is, are more informed on other religions. Misunderstandings are, verily, rooted in ignorance.

A laudable intent. But also no small challenge, and it is unclear whether you will be open enough to accept what they say when it conflicts with your expectations of monotheistic, Abrahamic parameters.

I'm a very open-minded person, Luis. I'm perfectly capable of accepting the differences between my religion and others. Heck, I will even give props to religions for offering me a new perspective on something, or if I discover something unique in another religion. Though, I think you may need a bit of an education when it comes to what I believe about God and the implications of that belief:

God is one, yes, but ultimately, God is Unknowable, Inaccessible to the human mind. What does this mean? This would make each and every conception of the Divine inaccurate but at the same time, perfectly valid. How does this translate in my evaluation of the different religions? Ultimately, I believe that The Truth is Unknowable by human beings directly, which is the different Religions were created. To give us varying glimpses, each beautiful, all valid, into that which is – I believe – Unascertainable directly.

Agreed. Still, as I hope to have made clear in the OP, the opposite is not always, automatically a good thing.

You have, and I make mention of it.

 

[atanu]

And, yet, as you are aware, the Rg was written before the time of Abrahamic (and other) more modern religions. So as to whether they would be deemed as containing the same truth is debatable. Maybe our sages were just writing about the methods they saw around them at that time in history. Then again, maybe they were all-inclusive, and into the future.

It is understood commonly that Rig is beyond desha, kala, and mana (beyond constraints of space-country, time, and mind). It is immaterial whether X or Y wrote truth.

Rig Vedic sukta "The truth is one, which sages call differently", applies universally to the general that runs through the diversity (and for sayings of sages). It probably never applies to particulars themselves and surely does not apply to mental level preferences and arguments. Yet, Rig Veda itself considers all the splendorous difference-diversity to be due to operation of Maruts (mind-senses) on Rudra (on the non dual Self).

It is, IMO, important that I myself follow tenets of my own religion, before finding deficiencies elsewhere. Often, I myself, egged by sense of individuality and sense of body-mind being me, forget that. As per Rig Veda and Vedanta, universe is modification of one mind. Whatever is believed, the Universe gets shaped accordingly.