What Do All Religions Have In Common?

[syberpriend]

I didnt said anywher any 1 is doing wrong, i posted as per the post the common thing, beside this I dont think u can find a commo thing between all religions. But the precise definition of religion u can harldy find in any dictionary, all differ from each other as well.

 

[rojse]

I didnt said anywher any 1 is doing wrong, i posted as per the post the common thing, beside this I dont think u can find a commo thing between all religions. But the precise definition of religion u can harldy find in any dictionary, all differ from each other as well.

That's why I thought this thread would be fun - after all, we have some idea as to what a religion is and what is not, but can we actually explain that?

 

[linwood]

That's why I thought this thread would be fun - after all, we have some idea as to what a religion is and what is not, but can we actually explain that?

So what has this thread gotten so far?
(Sorry it got a little off track the last page or so with the argument for monotheism)

We`ve got a couple necessities for "religion"

Believers
Rituals

That`s it?
Is that all you need?
I might have missed something.

Do you even need believers or rituals?

The "Spice Cults" in the sci-Fi epic Dune certainly don`t have any real "believers" but for some reason I still consider it a religion.

Is all you need a "Concept" or an "Idea"?
How "real" does it have to be to qualify as "religion"?

What`s the defining standard and why?

 

[rojse]

So what has this thread gotten so far?
(Sorry it got a little off track the last page or so with the argument for monotheism)

We`ve got a couple necessities for "religion"

Believers
Rituals

That`s it?
Is that all you need?
I might have missed something.

Do you even need believers or rituals?

The "Spice Cults" in the sci-Fi epic Dune certainly don`t have any real "believers" but for some reason I still consider it a religion.

Is all you need a "Concept" or an "Idea"?
How "real" does it have to be to qualify as "religion"?

What`s the defining standard and why?

You certainly did miss a few things. Just on the first page, we have these responses:

In my comparative world religion class we defined religion as; containing the belief in a higher power, and ways to relate to that higher power.

I'd say the only common characteristic is, to quote Leoben from BSG, "this is not all that we are."

They all provide understanding for the mysteries that we do not understand.

I think all religions offer an attempt to allow people reconcile themselves with infinity.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Lets not debate on Zakir Naik, just 1 remarks for him, lets suppose he is wrong, y never any1 stop him or point him in large gatherings, and the gathering is not of 50-100 ppl, its more than 1000's in number , and not only i his country, mostly outside his country and in west aswell. if u r right, post it in his website, or ao any of his seminar, and give ur point rather thn just sitting on pc and putting ur remarks.

ok.

I already said earlier brother, Hindus believe in 300000gods, but wats the summary of their scripture? where do all these 300000 god reach at the end? in 1 God, , ask any Hindu scholar, good vedantist, and thn tell us.

let any hindu answer this,i am not one.

By the way, sufism is not part of Islam, there is no space of so-called sufism promoted through Media in Islam,

ok.

 

[sandandfoam]

That's why I thought this thread would be fun - after all, we have some idea as to what a religion is and what is not, but can we actually explain that?

As part of my revision last week I was doing categories and concepts. Seems that water tight definition of any category apart from perhaps bachelors, spinsters and odd/even numbers is nigh on impossible.

 

[linwood]

You certainly did miss a few things. Just on the first page, we have these responses:

You certainly did miss a few things. Just on the first page, we have these responses:

Naw, I think my bias kinda rejected most of them just as I`m ultimately rejecting believers and rituals as well.

Originally Posted by Xiao_Shu
In my comparative world religion class we defined religion as; containing the belief in a higher power, and ways to relate to that higher power.

I know of religions that make no call to a higher power.
Personal mystical introspection usually goes no farther than oneself (although it`s often misunderstood) and I`d consider it "religion" or at the very least "religious".

Originally Posted by CelticRavenwolf
They all provide understanding for the mysteries that we do not understand.

But they really don`t.
Most religions give false understanding of the mysterious.
Ignorance is preferable to misinformed is it not?
Some religions don1`t make any claim on understanding the mysterious.
Laveyan Satanism comes to mind.

Originally Posted by atotalstranger
I'd say the only common characteristic is, to quote Leoben from BSG, "this is not all that we are."

I think you could base a religion upon "all that we are" .
All that we "really" are anyway.
Religion could be based upon reality could it not?
Is it not at times already?

Originally Posted by stephenw
I think all religions offer an attempt to allow people reconcile themselves with infinity.

stephenw is the only one I can`t seem to argue with.


So what we have left (as far as I`m concerned) is...

"Religion is a concept that allows humans to reconcile themselves with infinity."

Is it really basically that egotistical when you strip it right down to it`s bare core?

I thought so.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

No,his argumentis correct,but he has used extracts which used several times to reconcile Hinduism and Islam.Monotheism is an important philosophy in Hinduism.It is called Dvaita started by Madhavacharya.

Very True

Vedic texts can be intrepreted ( the shrutis Upanishad,Brahmasutra,Bhagavat Gita)in any of the three ways(or u can invent some ways) Dvaita....Vishishtadvaita(qualified nonduality Ramanajuacharya).....advaita(from sankara---complete monism).Advaita is the most abstract concept that symbolises divine union and it takes up absolute unchanging standpoint.Buddhist Sunyata is the exact conceptual opposite to advaita.They are non-contradictory perspectives of truth.

True Dualism, Qualified Dualism, Non-Dualism, and Atheism all have been used to interpet the Vedas. I just find the way the Muslim sites twist the Hindu scriptures to be un-ethical. Many of the verses he is quoting are non dualist. I believe that Hinduism teaches all the different forms of religion not just one.

To emphasize monotheism is common Islamic perspective ,in fact it was used by MAdhva to save himself from Mughal Islamic conquests.It is called Tawheed in Islam. Islamic Monism has roots in sufism,

True Sufi's tend to be monist. I have no problems with Islam. I just dont like the twisting of scriptures to convert others.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Dude, ofcourse if the verses are kept on the website, its reliable, i can't read Vedar, and other books, and write of my own, dat would take longggggg time, and Zakir Naik in his lectures also told these verses as u said, y never a hindu stand their and reject his remarks,? there is open q/a session, also in debate with Hindu scholars, no hindu scholar rejected these verses, concepts of hindus, wat is real is if ppl will change or add some ideas in the scriptures or teachings, that does'nt make the original script and teaching void.

Yes they have many times. We agree with the verses just not his translation of them. Many Hindu scholars have spoken out. I have taken two verses showed you them in context. Yet you refuse to look at it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Dude, ofcourse if the verses are kept on the website, its reliable, i can't read Vedar, and other books, and write of my own, dat would take longggggg time, and Zakir Naik in his lectures also told these verses as u said, y never a hindu stand their and reject his remarks,? there is open q/a session, also in debate with Hindu scholars, no hindu scholar rejected these verses, concepts of hindus, wat is real is if ppl will change or add some ideas in the scriptures or teachings, that does'nt make the original script and teaching void.

I have study the Hindu scriptures for 20 years Zakir is wrong on a lot of his points. You see the problem is it takes a lot of time to understand some ones faith. You cant just copy and paste lies off the internet because it's easy then ignore what people say in return. When you have no idea of what you are saying.

If you believe that only your faith is true. Thats ok. We can talk about it. It is un-ethical to copy and paste lies have no understand of what it means. Then tell me that I don't believe in true Hinduism. This is just a complete lack of ethics.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Whatever u understand, its from ur scripture brother, its like this, If i say its night, u will say "NO, Its not night, its dark, or sun has vanished this time".

No it's not like that. I will change my mind if you can show me that what you say is true. I have no problems with Islam. I see it as a path to God. I just don't like others twisting my scriptures. I showed you the two texts you took out of context. Now show me how I am wrong.

 

[nameless]

It should be worshiping of One God, find out urself which religion practicaly do that

it is the hindus who first put forward the concept of one god many thousands of years ago and for spiritual practice majority choose one god concept.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Lets not debate on Zakir Naik, just 1 remarks for him, lets suppose he is wrong, y never any1 stop him or point him in large gatherings, and the gathering is not of 50-100 ppl, its more than 1000's in number , and not only i his country, mostly outside his country and in west aswell. if u r right, post it in his website, or ao any of his seminar, and give ur point rather thn just sitting on pc and putting ur remarks.

I have watched his debates on You Tube. I would not sit in his crowds and question him it is a very hostile environment I would be worried about my safety. My Hindu temple has had many Islamic teachers come with there students. None of them ever acted like the people who come to see Zakir Naik.

I already said earlier brother, Hindus believe in 300000gods,

I have lived in a Hindu Ashram. I have study two different sects of Hinduism. I do not know 1 Hindu ( who studied his scriptures ) who believes in more then One god. I have met many non Hindu’s who say that we believe in millions of Gods. I know Atheist Hindu’s, Monist Hindu’s Monotheist Hindu’s and Agnostic Hindu’s. I do not know any Hindu who believes that all the Gods are not One.

 

[nameless]

Rest for Buddhism, if u see the history, Budha introduce reforms in the religion from Hindus, he never claim there is no god, but he stop worshiping those gods, and moreover, he never claim to be a god, and told his followers to worship him.

the word 'god' is not in Buddha's dictionary, so he was silent about god.
answering existence of god will result to another question - what is his concept regarding god.

And Buddha never asked his followers to worship him, only asked to follow the path put forward by him. He said ' kill the Buddha' means you should remove Buddha from the mind if he comes in the path to truth.

Brother syberpriend, to learn Buddhism you should to learn from Buddhist texts and not from islamic scholars or islamic website, if you lack time for that kindly dont comment on them.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Brother syberpriend, to learn Buddhism you should to learn from Buddhist texts and not from islamic scholars or islamic website, if you lack time for that kindly dont comment on them.

Amen !

 

[nameless]

Dude, ofcourse if the verses are kept on the website, its reliable, i can't read Vedas, and other books, and write of my own, dat would take longggggg time

lol, there are thousands of websites describing faults and contradictions in quran and those too should be reliable.

 

[nameless]

Lets not debate on Zakir Naik, just 1 remarks for him, lets suppose he is wrong, y never any1 stop him or point him in large gatherings, and the gathering is not of 50-100 ppl, its more than 1000's in number , and not only i his country, mostly outside his country and in west aswell. if u r right, post it in his website, or ao any of his seminar, and give ur point rather thn just sitting on pc and putting ur remarks.

zakir naik is not dared to invite intelligent hindu scholars for debate, he does all the home work to challenge hindu scriptures and then he invites less intellectual hindu saints as guest. Once these saints are in the stage, zakir shows his real intention, he starts to question hindu scriptures and the saints gets cheated before the big crowd. To the dualists he asks about non-dualism and to non-dualist he asks about dualism. People often describe zakir naik is a juvenile in character.

And for the crowd, it does not matter. They are hungry to see anything or anyone praising islam. Hitler too had a big crowd behind him, that does not justifies him, same in the case of islamic terrorists. If you feels he is right just posts his views here, we shall discuss those .

zakir naik is a juvenile, liar and terrorism well wisher. He has his own explanations on vedas and buddhism. He alters vedic texts to develop confusion in ignorant people and also in favor of islam.

An article found in his website

III. PHILOSOPHY OF BUDDHISM IS SELF – CONTRADICTORY: by zakir naik

As mentioned earlier, the main teachings of Buddhism are summarised in the Four Noble Truths:
(i) There is suffering and misery in life.

(ii) The cause of suffering and misery is desire.

(iii) Suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire.

(iv) Desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path.


This Philosophy of Buddhism is self-contradictory or self-defeating because the third truth says ‘suffering and misery can be removed by removing desire’ and the fourth truth says that 'desire can be removed by following the Eight Fold Path'.

Now, for any person to follow Buddhism he should first have the desire to follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. The Third great Noble Truth says that desire should be removed. Once you remove desire, how can we follow the Fourth Noble truth i.e. follow the Eight Fold Path unless we have a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. In short desire can only be removed by having a desire to follow the Eight Fold Path. If you do not follow the Eight Fold Path, desire cannot be removed. It is self contradicting as well as self-defeating to say that desire will only be removed by continuously having a desire.

this shows how matured zakir is and what he is upto.

 

[rojse]

stephenw is the only one I can`t seem to argue with.

So what we have left (as far as I`m concerned) is...

"Religion is a concept that allows humans to reconcile themselves with infinity."

Is it really basically that egotistical when you strip it right down to it`s bare core?

I thought so.

That was a short summary of the first page, and it seems that I have found one that you missed. I have no doubt that there are more things that you have missed between that and this post.

 

[rojse]

As part of my revision last week I was doing categories and concepts. Seems that water tight definition of any category apart from perhaps bachelors, spinsters and odd/even numbers is nigh on impossible.

Perhaps the concept of religion is something we intuit, something that we know but cannot identify and describe to another.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Not all religions contain are monotheistic (a single god) as you presume. There are polytheistic religions, which means multiple gods (one example of this is hinduism, in which all gods and godesses are seen as manifestations of a single God), and there are religions without gods (such as buddhism).

This is inaccurate.

The fact that Hinduism sees multiple manifestations of A SINGLE GOD means that it (at least as originally revealed) is indeed monotheistic!

And while not stressing God, Buddhism in fact does believe in a Supreme Being as this quote from Buddhist scripture demonstrates:

"There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependant, that also moves; what is independent does not move."
—(Udana 8:3)

Buddhist scriptures also speak of “gods and men.”

(Granted, Buddhism has since split into theistic and non-theistic branches.)


Peace,

Bruce