Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
I have always been frustrated at a perplexing issue throughout my life and it is that I seriously love two different religions. Sanatana Dharma(Hinduism) and Islam. I have exclusively tried my best to follow both but it eventually lead me back to the other. I genuinely understand both religions well and their argument about the nature of god but I oddly find both of them right in their own way. I find both of them right and wrong in certain places so I obviously do not accept both of them wholly. I have disagreements with both of them although the positive outweighs any negativity I find in them. I am always reminded of Sai baba of Shirdi and has peaceful unity of Hindu and Muslim. He saw no difference between either group and disregarded the dogma of both religions to bring forth a mutual understanding.
Being a natural deist I rationalize each aspect of all religions and I place very little emphasis on dogma but instead I place emphasis on the statement a religion or theology makes. I myself have always used the term "Dharmic Muslim" to describe my meshing of believes but this creates quite a bit of confusion because I do not feel attached to either party. SO lately I have decided to use the word deist simply because I am one to begin with. Yet there is the prevailing issue that using this term does gives less information about my own beliefs. The vagueness of deism leads to lack of spiritual identity for me very often. But being a deist I know that no holy boo is correct and all scriptures contain some amount of corruption. Reliance on scripture leads to close mindedness and surely god is not limited. Certain scriptures and its followers claim that theirs is the ultimate and designed for the world yet god has never produced it in another part of the world. All dogma is bias as are all prophets because the religions created from them are understood through individual experience and limited understanding. So no religion can claim to be universal or singularly valid.
I would like to ask if am I the only one who faces this issue? Have people like myself outgrown organized religion and dogma? How does one come to terms with their love of multiple religions and varying teachings?
Being a natural deist I rationalize each aspect of all religions and I place very little emphasis on dogma but instead I place emphasis on the statement a religion or theology makes. I myself have always used the term "Dharmic Muslim" to describe my meshing of believes but this creates quite a bit of confusion because I do not feel attached to either party. SO lately I have decided to use the word deist simply because I am one to begin with. Yet there is the prevailing issue that using this term does gives less information about my own beliefs. The vagueness of deism leads to lack of spiritual identity for me very often. But being a deist I know that no holy boo is correct and all scriptures contain some amount of corruption. Reliance on scripture leads to close mindedness and surely god is not limited. Certain scriptures and its followers claim that theirs is the ultimate and designed for the world yet god has never produced it in another part of the world. All dogma is bias as are all prophets because the religions created from them are understood through individual experience and limited understanding. So no religion can claim to be universal or singularly valid.
I would like to ask if am I the only one who faces this issue? Have people like myself outgrown organized religion and dogma? How does one come to terms with their love of multiple religions and varying teachings?