All religions: one and the same?

[Sundance]

Hey, everyone. ^^ Peace.

Uhhh.....recently, I've been back and forth in my mind about this, but I can't really figure it out. On the one hand, I do feel like something's at the root of all of it, but simultaneously, I question whether or not the notion is misguided and runs the risk of homogenizing vastly different spheres of religious experience. What about you all? Where do you sit or stand here? Do you feel like all religions are one or do you feel the notion is misguided?

 

[Rival]

The source of all is human longing for G-d.

The difference is how this manifests & cultural ways.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Hey, everyone. ^^ Peace.

Uhhh.....recently, I've been back and forth in my mind about this, but I can't really figure it out. On the one hand, I do feel like something's at the root of all of it, but simultaneously, I question whether or not the notion is misguided and runs the risk of homogenizing vastly different spheres of religious experience. What about you all? Where do you sit or stand here? Do you feel like all religions are one or do you feel the notion is misguided?

I voted yes, but that answer is contingent upon my definition of religion, which is basically anything you devote yourself to by means of faith.

For instance, one non standard example would be traditional martial arts. With the advent of mma, we now know with some certainty what is effective in combat and what is not. No matter how many traditional karate or taichi masters get pummeled into the ground, there will always be those that believe their Kung Fu contains secret deadly techniques, and that their masters can defeat anyone.
Never mind the fact that said 'masters' never fight or spar, and when one does they almost always lose...there's just no arguing it.

 

[Sundance]

The source of all is human longing for G-d.

The difference is how this manifests & cultural ways.

Groovy response, Rival! Thank you.

 

[Vinayaka]

I voted a definitive no. There are vast differences. Only on the most simplistic level are they even at all similar.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are certainly root causes for religion that spread among various, otherwise unconnected doctrines.

It is very much worth studying those causes and how they relate to each religion or doctrine.

All the same, it is at best optimistic to say that all doctrines that claim to be religious in nature are strongly correlated, let alone "the same". It is just common sense to acknowledge that some doctrines are saner than others, and that even among those that are undeniably healthy there is a wide spectrum of approaches and choices.

There is also the matter of actual need for divergence. Not all communities are significantly alike, and to a significant extent that results in different religious needs. Many religious teachings will have conditional worth depending on the circunstances and even on the specific people that they are taught to. That is not a problem in itself, but failure to recognize that reality often is a problem.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm not sure I'd say the notion is misguided as much as I would say it is just plain wrong. The typical motivations behind making this claim are far from misguided. Some people believe that to promote camaraderie amongst peoples, you have to find common ground. Naturally, the people who believe this might seek that common ground within what has historically been one of the most divisive elements of human cultures: religion. What I would suggest these people do is recognize that you do not need common ground to promote camaraderie. There is no need to promote false unity. There is far more to be learned from differences and diversity than the monotonous sameness that is unity.

 

[Sundance]

I voted a definitive no. There are vast differences. Only on the most simplistic level are they even at all similar.

I do agree, Vinayakaji. Thank you for your response. It really does mean so much!

 

[Sundance]

There are certainly root causes for religion that spread among various, otherwise unconnected doctrines.

It is very much worth studying those causes and how they relate to each religion or doctrine.

All the same, it is at best optimistic to say that all doctrines that claim to be religious in nature are strongly correlated, let alone "the same". It is just common sense to acknowledge that some doctrines are saner than others, and that even among those that are undeniably healthy there is a wide spectrum of approaches and choices.

There is also the matter of actual need for divergence. Not all communities are significantly alike, and to a significant extent that results in different religious needs. Many religious teachings will have conditional worth depending on the circunstances and even on the specific people that they are taught to. That is not a problem in itself, but failure to recognize that reality often is a problem.

I do agree that the reality of differences ought to be acknowledged, Luis. Thank you for your response.

 

[Sundance]

I'm not sure I'd say the notion is misguided as much as I would say it is just plain wrong. The typical motivations behind making this claim are far from misguided. Some people believe that to promote camaraderie amongst peoples, you have to find common ground. Naturally, the people who believe this might seek that common ground within what has historically been one of the most divisive elements of human cultures: religion. What I would suggest these people do is recognize that you do not need common ground to promote camaraderie. There is no need to promote false unity. There is far more to be learned from differences and diversity than the monotonous sameness that is unity.

I find your perspective very enlightening, Q. It makes a ton of sense. Thanks for your response.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

There are commonalities in all religions, I'd say, not least but because all religion is an attempt to make sense of the reality we experience. All religion talks about the "unseen" (sure they may mention the "seen" but only as a pointer to the "greater unseen" behind it). After that though, there is massive diversity in approaches to explain our existence, from religions that have room for atheism, to those that insist on a personal deity of some description.
So, the honest answer is no, they are not all the same, that's where my vote went.

 

[Jainarayan]

No. The only commonality I see is a belief in a deity or deities, devotion to that deity, and a goal of uniting with or seeing that deity after this life. It's the practices, dogma, doctrines and requirements that are vastly different, and often at odds. For example, in no way are Aztec religion (even as practiced today, even removing human sacrifice) and Jainism similar, comparable or compatible.

 

[eldios]

Hey, everyone. ^^ Peace.

Uhhh.....recently, I've been back and forth in my mind about this, but I can't really figure it out. On the one hand, I do feel like something's at the root of all of it, but simultaneously, I question whether or not the notion is misguided and runs the risk of homogenizing vastly different spheres of religious experience. What about you all? Where do you sit or stand here? Do you feel like all religions are one or do you feel the notion is misguided?

Yes there is a root to all religions and here's the answer but you have to read the entire writing.
What is the Beast and the Antichrist?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Voted no. Like others have said, the differences in a lot of cases are vast and irreconcilable. I think one of the only things that can be said on the level of "sameness" is that there is some sort of psychological imperative at work in the majority of human beings that manifests itself as the search for something "spiritual." That's about all that the adherents of each faith have in common on that front... and otherwise religious belief is pretty much a free-for-all/anything-goes type of endeavor.

 

[Sundance]

Voted no. Like others have said, the differences in a lot of cases are vast and irreconcilable. I think one of the only things that can be said on the level of "sameness" is that there is some sort of psychological imperative at work in the majority of human beings that manifests itself as the search for something "spiritual." That's about all that the adherents of each faith have in common on that front... and otherwise religious belief is pretty much a free-for-all/anything-goes type of endeavor.

Interesting response, AVM. Thank you for your response.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

People's motivations and drives are the same - such as the need to explain things, the fear of not existing, and the need for the importance and meaning of human existence. The ways these express through religions have fundamental commonalities. However, when comparing the extended details of thousands of distinct religions and sects, it's clear that the ultimate outcomes encompasses a whole host of incompatible concepts and teachings.

 

[SabahTheLoner]

While the goal of many if not all religions are similar, I don't think all religions are the same. I mean, if everyone followed the same path, and there was no other path to follow, there would be not much to talk about and nothing to discover.... religion isn't like that and it's beautiful to discover. Because it answers questions that one might have... one religion may not satisfy all the answers one person has, while another will give them everything about themselves in front of their very eyes. I personally think it shows us how unique every person is.

 

[sayak83]

Hey, everyone. ^^ Peace.

Uhhh.....recently, I've been back and forth in my mind about this, but I can't really figure it out. On the one hand, I do feel like something's at the root of all of it, but simultaneously, I question whether or not the notion is misguided and runs the risk of homogenizing vastly different spheres of religious experience. What about you all? Where do you sit or stand here? Do you feel like all religions are one or do you feel the notion is misguided?

No they are not all the same. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. Nobody will ever think of asking
Are all ways of cooking the same?
Are all languages the same?
Are all technology the same?
Are all cultures the same?
Are all kinds of music the same?
Are all fruits the same?

It's that obvious that they are not. That does not mean there are no elements in them that are comparable in some sense (just like all other examples above). They do and hence they are all classified as religions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ha ha, definitely not. Monotheism is a curse.

The source of all is human longing for G-d.

Not in the least with me.

 

[Thief]

Hey, everyone. ^^ Peace.

Uhhh.....recently, I've been back and forth in my mind about this, but I can't really figure it out. On the one hand, I do feel like something's at the root of all of it, but simultaneously, I question whether or not the notion is misguided and runs the risk of homogenizing vastly different spheres of religious experience. What about you all? Where do you sit or stand here? Do you feel like all religions are one or do you feel the notion is misguided?

no, they are not all the same...but they should be

there is only one.....Almighty