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

[popsthebuilder]

Check this article: http://www.comparativereligion.com/god.html

I prefer to compare them based on their core scriptures, an opened mind, and lack of preconceived biases. Thank you for the link though. I asked about the "different goals" because I have yet to find them, and I thought someone would actually point them out based on their own conclusions.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Good question.

What about

Adi Da?
Akhenaten?
Alesteir Crowley?
Allan Kardec?
Anton LaVey?
Auguste Comte?
Sri Aurobindo?
Atisha?
The Báb?
Bahá'u'lláh?
Bodhidharma?
Confucius?
Dogen?
Ellen G. White?
Mestre Gabriel?
George Fox?
Gerald Gardner?
Guru Nanak?
Haile Selassie?
Hamza ibn-'Ali ibn-Ahmad?
H.P. Blavatsky?
Inri Cristo?
John Calvin?
Joseph Smith?
Li Hongzhi?
L Ron Hubbard?
Madhvacharya?
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
Mahavira?
Mark L. Prophet?
Marshall Applewhite?
Martin Luther?
Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab?
Nagarjuna?
Nebuchadnezzar II?
Nichiren?
Padmasambhava?
Paul the Apostle?
Paul Twitchell?
Rajneesh?
Rudolf Steiner?
Samael Aun Weor?
Sathya Sai Baba?
Shinran Shonin?
Shoko Asahara?
Songtsen Gampo?
Paramahansa Yogananda?

Each and every one of those was at least a major influence in the creation of religious movements. Yet I doubt anyone can truly accept all of them as divinely inspired, at least in any sense that excludes the average person.

I honestly don't see how anyone can avoid concluding that at least some of those are lying or deluded.

Edited to add: also, how non-inspired can the likes of Saladin, Badshah Khan and Ramana possibly be, if we somehow convince ourselves that all of the above are divinely inspired?

You forgot Charles Manson, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Michael Aquino, Robert de Grimston, etc.!

 

[LuisDantas]

Indeed. Good intentions not withstanding, we all eventually have to decide that some religious claims just can't be taken seriously.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Indeed. Good intentions not withstanding, we all eventually have to decide that some religious claims just can't be taken seriously.

Actually, I mentioned them as a matter of fairness and to further point out the hypocrisy of the perennialist types. I actually kind of like a couple of those I mentioned.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough. But I take it that you still feel the need to disregard some of those claims?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Fair enough. But I take it that you still feel the need to disregard some of those claims?

My opinion is that I don't care whether they actually received some message from an ethereal being, epiphany or what have you. That doesn't mean that whatever they say is necessarily relevant to me or that anyone should actually pay attention to it. Like if some entity calling itself "Set" (which has nothing to do with the ancient Egyptian deity, really) actually contacted Aquino, that doesn't mean I have to care about what "Set" or Aquino says (and I don't).

 

[Vinayaka]

I prefer to compare them based on their core scriptures, an opened mind, and lack of preconceived biases. Thank you for the link though. I asked about the "different goals" because I have yet to find them, and I thought someone would actually point them out based on their own conclusions.

I've done a lot of reading, and researched it through articles such as this, but still, those aren't my own conclusions, as that would only be from personal meditation, not reading via the intellect the words of others. Born agnostic, I did start from an open mind 40 years ago though. Although many claim to reach the same conclusions practicing different religions, that's actually pretty hard (I would claim impossible) to do, because you simple can't go back and start from scratch. The first religion you practiced gave you some knowledge. I have seen from observing behaviours in the various faiths. differences in external approach, for sure. One simple example is cremation versus burial based on what happens when you die.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Confucius? was a prophet/messenger of G-d.
Socrates was a prophet/messenger of G-d.
Guru Nanak? was a Muslim saint/wali-ullah.
Regardds

What about the others in LuisDantas' list?

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

For instance, will you please list/identify, problems between Hinduism and Buddhism? They had existed side by side as neighbors for centuries? Please
Regards

I am not expert enough on Hinduism to dare delve too deeply into this. But I understand Hinduism consists of a wide plethora of independent paths and systems of belief. One might rightly consider it a collection of religions rather than one religion. That said, it's true that the two religions coexisted in India for a long time, with Buddhism developing within an already developed Hindu culture and context in modern day Nepal.

While both Hinduism and Buddhism share some practices like meditation, their goals are different. Both traditions were born out of the desire to escape the problem of samsara, the negatively-depicted and perpetual cycle of reincarnation. Union with Atman (Self, or what might be called God) is a central goal within Hinduism, and a solution to the problem of samsara. Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha, was moved to find a solution to samsara, but came to his own path which developed into Buddhism. Rather than being concerned with any sort of union with a Divinity, the Buddha instead described some new insights which clashed to a significant degree with traditional Hindu beliefs. The concept of anatta (no-self) for instance, which rejected the notion of an eternal Atman and instead posited that all phenomena are empty of permanent identity. Ultimately, he avoided metaphysical discussions and focused on his stated goal of the cessation of dukkha (suffering, or existential dissatisfaction) and the attainment of awareness, as already explained.

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

Ya'quub said: ↑
Are you saying that the founders of all religions received Words of Revelation from Allaah?

Buddhism: yes, Buddha had Revelation from G-d.
...

P.S.Confucius? was a prophet/messenger of G-d.
Socrates was a prophet/messenger of G-d.
...

I understand people will believe what they want to believe. But the above statements are not supported by the traditional religions or philosophies they pertain to. There's absolutely nothing in Buddhism, Confucianism, or in Socrates's writings to indicate an interest in a monotheistic worldview, let alone show they were prophets or messengers of such a deity.

The Buddha was interested in the pragmatic removal of suffering. Despite the prevalence of polytheistic beliefs among traditional Asian Buddhists, the Buddha's teachings could best be described as non-theistic (unconcerned with deities).

Confucius prescribed an ethical system of behavior that he believed best suited to ensuring a stable Chinese nation filled with well-mannered and educated citizens. He encouraged a conservative approach to performing rituals, including the ancient Chinese practice of ancestor worship. But he spoke rather little about the supernatural himself, being chiefly concerned with proper etiquette, education, and good behavior.

Socrates I've studied less, but I know he was a polytheist rather than a monotheist.

 

[paarsurrey]

But the above statements are not supported by the traditional religions or philosophies they pertain to.

I never said that. If followers of religions go astray from the right/straight path told by the founders of religions, what remedy the founders have against it? Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I never said that. If followers of religions go astray from the right/straight path told by the founders of religions, what remedy the founders have against it? Please
Regards

How do you know that there is any merit in attempting to keep true to the original intent as opposed to daring to learn better?

The world changes, and so should doctrine.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Socrates was a prophet/messenger of G-d.

Socrates wasn't a prophet or messenger of any god. One of the reasons people wanted him dead was because he questioned everything, including the gods.

 

[paarsurrey]

Socrates wasn't a prophet or messenger of any god. One of the reasons people wanted him dead was because he questioned everything, including the gods.

And your argument/evidence that he was not a prophet/messenger of G-d. Please make yourself convenient to prove it. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And your argument/evidence that he was not a prophet/messenger of G-d. Please make yourself convenient to prove it. Right? Please
Regards

He was executed because he asked a ton of questions and was thought to be a bad influence on the youth. What more evidence you do you need? He tended to annoy people with his incessant questions, and not even the gods were off limits.
However, the burden of proof is on you because you claim he was a "prophet/messenger of G-d," implying not only a monotheistic approach but also an Abrahamic approach, and clearly Socrates was neither of those as the religion of the ancient Greeks was polytheistic.

 

[Kartari]

Hi paarsurrey,

I never said that. If followers of religions go astray from the right/straight path told by the founders of religions, what remedy the founders have against it? Please
Regards

To be clear, in the cases of Buddhism, Confucianism, and in Socrates's philosophy, I was referring to the founders' own teachings.

Let me elaborate on the Buddha for now. The Buddha himself, to the best of our knowledge, did not discuss metaphysics and only professed an interest in the cessation of dukkha as his goal for all sentient beings. Indeed, he's known to have declared self-reliance as a requirement to attain salvation for oneself (Dhp 165). In fact, he may have specifically disavowed deities as required in any manner concerning the goal of liberation from dukkha. In the Dhammapada, the Buddha is attributed to saying:

One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain (Dhp 160).

I cannot find where I read this at the moment, but in the Buddha's time and culture, the designation "protector" was synonymous with deity. When we reread the Buddha's words in this way, it becomes even more clear that the Buddha has placed the involvement of any and all deities entirely outside the scope of his teachings.

How then can anyone possibly propose he was a prophet or messenger of God?

 

[Kartari]

Hi Luis,

How do you know that there is any merit in attempting to keep true to the original intent as opposed to daring to learn better?

The world changes, and so should doctrine.

Agreed. In this case, as I explained to paarsurrey above, the original teachings as far as we can discern do in fact deviate from paarsurrey's claim. But it makes perfect sense to me to value teachings on their own merits, rather than how well they reflect one specific person's earlier intent. I've long resonated with Buddhism because the general philosophy makes the most sense to me. I could never pick a specific Buddhist sect to fit into, as I both like and dislike prominent facets of both Theravadan and Mahayanist sects in general, let alone more specific schools.

 

[DawudTalut]

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?

Peace be on you.
Based on Quran, Ahmadiyya-Muslims believe that God sent Envoys / Prophets to all people everywhere with message:
Pay rights of God and rights of people, and believe in Hereafter.

The evolution of this message continued till Quran, as we believe.

Along the line message changed; One God was thought many, God attributes were considered as deities etc.

We tell others respectfully about original message, its final shape and added-changes --- with with no compulsion or force, respectfully.

Pro: Interfaith dialogue, common morals, helping law-makers for good laws.
Con: If others are told you are wrong without wisdom, there might be mahem.

 

[LuisDantas]

Peace be on you.

Peace be on you, Dawud.

Based on Quran, Ahmadiyya-Muslims believe that God sent Envoys / Prophets to all people everywhere with message:
Pay rights of God and rights of people, and believe in Hereafter.

The evolution of this message continued till Quran, as we believe.

So I have learned.

It is a difficult teaching for one to learn, far as I can tell. It includes a conflict between perceiving all people as equally entitled to their dignity and peace while at the same time expecting them to eventually adopt monotheistic beliefs and to conclude that the Abrahamic religions are somehow both true and in convergence.

Along the line message changed; One God was thought many, God attributes were considered as deities etc.

We tell others respectfully about original message, its final shape and added-changes --- with with no compulsion or force, respectfully.

Pro: Interfaith dialogue, common morals, helping law-makers for good laws.
Con: If others are told you are wrong without wisdom, there might be mahem.

Do you think common beliefs lead to common morals? I don't think it works that way.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you think common beliefs lead to common morals? I don't think it works that way.

I don't either. Religion is like a yellow light: everyone knows what it's for, but it brings out different things in different people. Some speed up, some slow down, some just ignore it ...