Redefining religion for our modern world: Can we find a balance

[No*s]

I would like see what people think of the following excerpt from the book named for the above subject title:

"Love, forgiveness, caring and generosity are important core beliefs for many religions. Loyalty to one God is uniquely important to Christians, Muslims and Jews. Eastern religions respect all of nature and believe everything is interconnected. The almost universal flaw in different relgions is the followers' belief that their religion is right while other religions are wrong. In my mind, this is one of the biggest obstacles our world has to overcome if we want to live harmoniously. Only a few religions respect other religions, believe in a united humanity, and try to live these beliefs."

Okay, what I am asking people is what do you think of that paragraph? Is there any hope that religions will accept each other? Do you think they will ever accept each other?

Honestly, it strikes me as irrational nonsense. Let's apply the standard to politics: "We would have a much better world if people and parties just stopped believing that their view is the right view". Well, it wouldn't work. Some view ends up being legislated, but not all, because they are mutually exclusive (one cannot be a free market capitalist and a socialist, and someone arguing a mixed economy really argues neither; one cannot believe in segregation and equality).

Let's try it with day to day business: is the sale's wording up for debate if it says a dozen eggs for $.50? If we try and buy some and are charged $5, we have something to say about it, and we believe we are right.

When two people say contradictory things about reality, we can't both be right. One person, or both, are wrong. This practice in religion draws up from the way we live. If it works in one sphere, it works in another. I wonder if the author is willing to say "We're both right" when he's dramatically overcharged at the store.

What I said doesn't undermine tolerance, either. Tolerance is, well, tolerating things, and we do not tolerate what we like. That is, it is a "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.", as the dictionary says. It has nothing to do with accepting or agreeing with. I am tolerant, but I am not relativist.

 

[challupa]

Honestly, it strikes me as irrational nonsense. Let's apply the standard to politics: "We would have a much better world if people and parties just stopped believing that their view is the right view". Well, it wouldn't work. Some view ends up being legislated, but not all, because they are mutually exclusive (one cannot be a free market capitalist and a socialist, and someone arguing a mixed economy really argues neither; one cannot believe in segregation and equality).

Let's try it with day to day business: is the sale's wording up for debate if it says a dozen eggs for $.50? If we try and buy some and are charged $5, we have something to say about it, and we believe we are right.

When two people say contradictory things about reality, we can't both be right. One person, or both, are wrong. This practice in religion draws up from the way we live. If it works in one sphere, it works in another. I wonder if the author is willing to say "We're both right" when he's dramatically overcharged at the store.

What I said doesn't undermine tolerance, either. Tolerance is, well, tolerating things, and we do not tolerate what we like. That is, it is a "a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.", as the dictionary says. It has nothing to do with accepting or agreeing with. I am tolerant, but I am not relativist.

I understand what you mean about two people with two different views can both be right. However, they can both be wrong too. That isn't the point that I think the author was trying to make there. In the realm of politics, yes, we are all going to have different views. That is why we vote and majority gets their view for that time around. I think the difference between religions and politics or overcharging in a store, is that the two are in different realms of understanding.

In the case of over charging, you are questioning a posted price in the physical world. It makes sense to question the overcharge. However, in the world of religion, no one can prove beyond all doubt, that their religion knows the only true way to God. Therefore there is room for doubt. I guess what the author is saying is this, why do we allow something we can't prove drive us to be so intolerant that we kill each other or feel superior to each other. They both cause no end of problems in our world. That's what I got from it anyway...

 

[emiliano]

I would like see what people think of the following excerpt from the book named for the above subject title:

"Love, forgiveness, caring and generosity are important core beliefs for many religions. Loyalty to one God is uniquely important to Christians, Muslims and Jews. Eastern religions respect all of nature and believe everything is interconnected. The almost universal flaw in different relgions is the followers' belief that their religion is right while other religions are wrong. In my mind, this is one of the biggest obstacles our world has to overcome if we want to live harmoniously. Only a few religions respect other religions, believe in a united humanity, and try to live these beliefs."

Okay, what I am asking people is what do you think of that paragraph? Is there any hope that religions will accept each other? Do you think they will ever accept each other?

The basic problem is that, it can only be one right faith in monotheistic religions, modern world views cannot change that, you either believe in your God or you believe in someone else’s God. My answer to the questions is no, there will never be acceptance of other peoples faith, tolerance and respect maybe, but acceptance? No.

 

[challupa]

The basic problem is that, it can only be one right faith in monotheistic religions, modern world views cannot change that, you either believe in your God or you believe in someone else’s God. My answer to the questions is no, there will never be acceptance of other peoples faith, tolerance and respect maybe, but acceptance? No.

Well isn't tolerance and respect enough for the world to come to a place where we don't fight holy wars? I agree I don't believe we will have a world where another religion accepts another religion as their own, just tolerance of the other religions beliefs. I think if we can grow enough to let go of the negative teachings that have come into our religions over time we can see tolerance. Thank you for your thoughts on the paragraph.

 

[lunamoth]

I understand what you mean about two people with two different views can both be right. However, they can both be wrong too. That isn't the point that I think the author was trying to make there. In the realm of politics, yes, we are all going to have different views. That is why we vote and majority gets their view for that time around. I think the difference between religions and politics or overcharging in a store, is that the two are in different realms of understanding.
<snip for focus>

Therefore there is room for doubt. I guess what the author is saying is this, why do we allow something we can't prove drive us to be so intolerant that we kill each other or feel superior to each other. They both cause no end of problems in our world. That's what I got from it anyway...

I agree with you. Maybe another way to state it is that there is room for humility, even if we trust our own religion.

 

[challupa]

I agree with you. Maybe another way to state it is that there is room for humility, even if we trust our own religion.

Exactly, thanks, that put the best perspective on it for me.:bow:

 

[No*s]

I understand what you mean about two people with two different views can both be right. However, they can both be wrong too. That isn't the point that I think the author was trying to make there. In the realm of politics, yes, we are all going to have different views. That is why we vote and majority gets their view for that time around. I think the difference between religions and politics or overcharging in a store, is that the two are in different realms of understanding.

In the case of over charging, you are questioning a posted price in the physical world. It makes sense to question the overcharge. However, in the world of religion, no one can prove beyond all doubt, that their religion knows the only true way to God. Therefore there is room for doubt. I guess what the author is saying is this, why do we allow something we can't prove drive us to be so intolerant that we kill each other or feel superior to each other. They both cause no end of problems in our world. That's what I got from it anyway...

Truth in the religious realm must function like truth in any other realm: it is true, or it is not. Once past that, yes, I can live tolerably in a pluralistic society. It doesn't change my belief one bit, nor does it call for it. Once we word the question like that, there's really no tension.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,
Surely one common thread between all religions is the objective of enlightenment to be in tune with whatever one calls it.
By and by the intellect through evolution will move towards that religion or path that does not talk about any god been there or not but ways and means of removing all perceptions of all kinds which in the first place is responsible for differences between individuals between religious groups etc.
The final path is meditation to still the mind which itself is the root of all differences between humans.
Love & rgds

 

[emiliano]

Well isn't tolerance and respect enough for the world to come to a place where we don't fight holy wars? I agree I don't believe we will have a world where another religion accepts another religion as their own, just tolerance of the other religions beliefs. I think if we can grow enough to let go of the negative teachings that have come into our religions over time we can see tolerance. Thank you for your thoughts on the paragraph.

I arrived to an answer that allows me to be tolerant of other religions, in the concept that nobody can be forced anybody to believe, that what people said about forced conversion is a lie, there has been instances where people declares to believe in a faith that they don’t believe in, but they are not really converted to it, How many converted has Islam made through violence? This people (Muslims) got their faith stolen away from them and it has been severally damaged by their action, the only thing that I have against them is that they have cowered in it defence, I have noting but admiration for the very few that defend their faith, they risk life and limbs when they say “you are not a Muslim” “You are not fighting for Islam” “this is not Islam.

 

[Pah]

...Okay, what I am asking people is what do you think of that paragraph? Is there any hope that religions will accept each other? Do you think they will ever accept each other?

I doubt it. Social alliances are made when acting on a belief. For example, the belief of LDS is considered cultish and wrong by fundimentalists but LDS support is appreciated in social actions, i.e., anti same-sex marriage.

 

[Japaholic]

"Love, forgiveness, caring and generosity are important core beliefs for many religions. Loyalty to one God is uniquely important to Christians, Muslims and Jews. Eastern religions respect all of nature and believe everything is interconnected. The almost universal flaw in different relgions is the followers' belief that their religion is right while other religions are wrong. In my mind, this is one of the biggest obstacles our world has to overcome if we want to live harmoniously. Only a few religions respect other religions, believe in a united humanity, and try to live these beliefs."

Would like to know a little more about the author and the work. My thoughts exactly, same meat different gravey.

 

[challupa]

Would like to know a little more about the author and the work. My thoughts exactly, same meat different gravey.

The book is a self published work and the contact for the author was in the front of the book as an email. [email protected]. The author's name is Coral Sterling. The book title is Redefining Religion for our Modern World: Can we find a Balance?

 

[Japaholic]

I have always felt a little that Christians/Muslims/Jews have so much in common. A few Years ago I backpacked round south east asia and talked to people from all religions on quite a deep level. I guess you have fleeting, soul touching moments when you travel. Anyone else been through similar?

I met a Jewish guy in Chiang Mai (Thailand) who was just out of the Israeli army. He described having to shoot a child to prevent said child planting explosives on his jeep. This had a shattering impact on him and he was psyched out of the army. I discussed Judaism with him in depth and watched his morning prayers deep in the jungle when we trekked together.

His moral fibre was the same as the Tunisian Muslim I spent a week with on an Island in Malaysia. He left Tunisia on a mission to find the heart of Islam. He ended up in a madrassa in Pakistan where he described the brainwashing he saw there.

These two men, from different faiths, countries and cultures were the same. They knew God personally and disagreed with things they should perhaps, by pure definition of their faith/identity, have been more at ease with.

I think when men meet in transient cirumstances they can open up more and find more in common with each other. I think we have things imposed on us because of the attached labels.

For example "I am Jewish, I must think and feel a certain way....."

Put a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian on an Island together and they'll get on and find solutions to the traditional problems between their faiths. Give them one politician and one preacher each and the trouble would start.

I've tried hard to explain myself in a difficult area, I am sorry if I have upset anyone or caused offence.

 

[Japaholic]

The book is a self published work and the contact for the author was in the front of the book as an email. [email protected]. The author's name is Coral Sterling. The book title is Redefining Religion for our Modern World: Can we find a Balance?

Thanks for the info.....

 

[challupa]

I have always felt a little that Christians/Muslims/Jews have so much in common. A few Years ago I backpacked round south east asia and talked to people from all religions on quite a deep level. I guess you have fleeting, soul touching moments when you travel. Anyone else been through similar?

I met a Jewish guy in Chiang Mai (Thailand) who was just out of the Israeli army. He described having to shoot a child to prevent said child planting explosives on his jeep. This had a shattering impact on him and he was psyched out of the army. I discussed Judaism with him in depth and watched his morning prayers deep in the jungle when we trekked together.

His moral fibre was the same as the Tunisian Muslim I spent a week with on an Island in Malaysia. He left Tunisia on a mission to find the heart of Islam. He ended up in a madrassa in Pakistan where he described the brainwashing he saw there.

These two men, from different faiths, countries and cultures were the same. They knew God personally and disagreed with things they should perhaps, by pure definition of their faith/identity, have been more at ease with.

I think when men meet in transient cirumstances they can open up more and find more in common with each other. I think we have things imposed on us because of the attached labels.

For example "I am Jewish, I must think and feel a certain way....."

Put a Muslim, a Jew and a Christian on an Island together and they'll get on and find solutions to the traditional problems between their faiths. Give them one politician and one preacher each and the trouble would start.

I've tried hard to explain myself in a difficult area, I am sorry if I have upset anyone or caused offence.

You and I are on the same page for sure. I have travelled some, mostly in North America and Australia, but I find the connection with all kinds of people everywhere. I think we have all got the core values ingrained in us and it's only the teachings we sometimes receive that confuse that purity and make it intolerant. One thing that I agreed with this author about was this paragraph:

"In many ways we have started the process of integrating different belief systems and we are finding that integration can work. The more we live with people of different beliefs the more we understand them. What we do not understand we fear. When we understand our fear subsides and we are far more willing to be tolerant. As people of different faiths become friends because of daily interaction they are also far more accepting of each other. They have connected. They begin to understand that everyone has the same fundamental needs. The families in Iraq, for example, want to live in a safe and sustainable environment just as much as we do in North America. They want opportunities to be available to their children just like we do. Being loved and supported by their families is just as important to them as it is to us. We must stop thinking of them as “the enemy” just because we do not understand them."

I believe that is what you experienced on your Asia tour. We are all so much alike but have strayed from the path of love for our fellow humanity because of early teachings from a person we either loved and respected or a person in power. The people we loved and respected never mislead us intentionally, that's not what I meant, but they taught us what they had been taught and never stopped to question it. Thus it goes, century to century. Maybe it's time to ask where our beliefs come from and are they true. Good talking to you.

 

[timjamz]

I would like see what people think of the following excerpt from the book named for the above subject title:

"Love, forgiveness, caring and generosity are important core beliefs for many religions. Loyalty to one God is uniquely important to Christians, Muslims and Jews. Eastern religions respect all of nature and believe everything is interconnected. The almost universal flaw in different relgions is the followers' belief that their religion is right while other religions are wrong. In my mind, this is one of the biggest obstacles our world has to overcome if we want to live harmoniously. Only a few religions respect other religions, believe in a united humanity, and try to live these beliefs."

Okay, what I am asking people is what do you think of that paragraph? Is there any hope that religions will accept each other? Do you think they will ever accept each other?

It seems to me that a religion only serves to perpetuate itself, and that "God" (or whatever people want to call it) exists regardless. I think what's quietly happening through globalization is an awakening to this insight -- that our source and ultimate destination is the same, and religion is only getting in the way of spiritual unity. Social disparity will never go away, but spiritual unity can (and will) be achieved.... eventually.

 

[challupa]

It seems to me that a religion only serves to perpetuate itself, and that "God" (or whatever people want to call it) exists regardless. I think what's quietly happening through globalization is an awakening to this insight -- that our source and ultimate destination is the same, and religion is only getting in the way of spiritual unity. Social disparity will never go away, but spiritual unity can (and will) be achieved.... eventually.

You know, I think you're right. I am seeing more and more people turning in the direction of spirituality instead of just being part of a religion. In many ways religion does get in the way of spirituality because some religions do not believe you can have a direct connection to God (or whatever you call that means to you). Affiliation with like minded people is nice, but inner work is done in private usually. When people are told all they need to do is believe in this or that and they will be saved, it takes away any notion of going within to know themselves or to connect to that higher consciousness. Many people who have had a NDE (near death experience) stress love and spirituality and not any particular religion. They seem to understand exactly what you stated about their being one destination and one source and we will achieve unity eventually.

 

[Caladan]

Okay, what I am asking people is what do you think of that paragraph? Is there any hope that religions will accept each other? Do you think they will ever accept each other?

The enlightened and educated are capable of this. to them, different groups have their ways, and that is only natural.
history shows us that enlightened and educated people of different faiths experience an interplay of communication. Maimonides the Jewish philosopher who was an inspiration to Thomas Aquinas was Saladin's physician. Jalaladdin Rumi, although thechnically a Muslim, wrote in a very universal way and was outspoken againt religious exclusivety and dogma.
I would not want to live in a world where everybody are expected to believe and think the same. I think that at this point of history, if you want to understand your faith, you need to get some insight into other faiths as well, in the sense of understanding the overlapping, the mutual history, the flow of ideas, and perhaps the very basics of what makes a religion in addition to letting universality lluminate the individual.

 

[challupa]

history shows us that enlightened and educated people of different faiths experience an interplay of communication. Maimonides the Jewish philosopher who was an inspiration to Thomas Aquinas was Saladin's physician. Jalaladdin Rumi, although thechnically a Muslim, wrote in a very universal way and was outspoken againt religious exclusivety and dogma.
I would not want to live in a world where everybody are expected to believe and think the same. I think that at this point of history, if you want to understand your faith, you need to get some insight into other faiths as well, in the sense of understanding the overlapping, the mutual history, the flow of ideas, and perhaps the very basics of what makes a religion in addition to letting universality lluminate the individual.

I agree with you when you say you wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone was expected to believe and think the same. I really believe that would be counter productive. Our strength as humanity is in our diversity imo. We need many different ways of thinking or we will stagnate and die. We saw how things did that during the dark ages when a religion was trying to dictate thought. The renaissance was a blossoming of new ideas and freedom to do so.

Understanding other faiths is important too like you said. One of the reasons why I like this book is there is a general reference in the back telling the origins and general beliefs of many more common religions. I learned a lot about what others believe. This forum is also a wonderful place to learn. The more we know about each other's beliefs helps us develop a higher level of tolerance in most cases. This isn't always true, but I see more and more people trying to understand other faiths and I take hope that we are travelling in the right direction.

 

[timjamz]

...understanding the overlapping, the mutual history, the flow of ideas, and perhaps the very basics...

I found an article today from the Chicago Tribune which provides a little insight into where Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all spawned from -- and how it relates to what's been happening in Iraq the last few years. It's a real tragedy.

The Mandaean religion has been all but wiped out due to the war over there.

You'll have to google it, I apparently can't post a link because I haven't posted enough posts!