Which Of the World's Religions Is Most Practical?

[Hema]

Absolutely...problem is once you get into understanding what people mean by "love"?

It's too vague for me to make any assesment, really.

Well, it is true that people think that they know what love is but they really don't know. So people might have different interpretations. Love to me is seeing myself in others and realizing that the self in others is the same. The spirit is the same in everyone. When we occupy the physical body we belong to a certain religion. When we die the body cannot be taken with us. The soul moves on. The soul does not belong to any religion. It is a child of God. It thrives on love from God. If we can experience this Divine love and express it with others, God will be pleased.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, it is true that people think that they know what love is but they really don't know. So people might have different interpretations. Love to me is seeing myself in others and realizing that the self in others is the same. The spirit is the same in everyone. When we occupy the physical body we belong to a certain religion. When we die the body cannot be taken with us. The soul moves on. The soul does not belong to any religion. It is a child of God. It thrives on love from God. If we can experience this Divine love and express it with others, God will be pleased.

Well, I have quite a contradicting belief in light of yours. I believe is programmed (for lack of a better term) to one body, and one body alone. Anywho, this will get us off topic....

As to how you see love, what if you don't see anything of "you" in someone else? What then?

 

[Hema]

Well, I have quite a contradicting belief in light of yours. I believe is programmed (for lack of a better term) to one body, and one body alone. Anywho, this will get us off topic....

Okey dokey. We won't go there then.

As to how you see love, what if you don't see anything of "you" in someone else? What then?

From my point of view, the real self is spirit which is the same in everyone, it is beyond physical differences, differences in personalities etc.

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]

Okey dokey. We won't go there then.




From my point of view, the real self is spirit which is the same in everyone, it is beyond physical differences, differences in personalities etc.

I don't understand how different personalities aren't attached to the soul? I'm guessing this is linked to Hindu theology of some sort...

 

[Hema]

I don't understand how different personalities aren't attached to the soul? I'm guessing this is linked to Hindu theology of some sort...

Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain it properly. I just meant that we sometimes see people as different from us because there are physical differences between us; people are also of different personalities. I meant that there are sometimes a clash of personalities among people. We might not like someone's attitude. For these reasons, we see ourselves as seperate from others, but the true nature or spirit is beyond all differences. The spirit within you is the same as the spirit within me and all of us for that matter.

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain it properly. I just meant that we sometimes see people as different from us because there are physical differences between us; people are also of different personalities. I meant that there are sometimes a clash of personalities among people. We might not like someone's attitude. For these reasons, we see ourselves as seperate from others, but the true nature or spirit is beyond all differences. The spirit within you is the same as the spirit within me and all of us for that matter.

Oh I see. So uniqueness in soul is not something you believe?

 

[Hema]

Oh I see. So uniqueness in soul is not something you believe?

No. To me, all souls are part of God who is one. We are all made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Quiddity]

No. To me, all souls are part of God who is one. We are all made in the image and likeness of God.

I believe that too. Except I do not believe being a "part" of something takes away your uniqueness.

But perhaps we are straying too much off topic. Thanks for the chat...

 

[lilithu]

Actually after reading this (from another thread):
I will not judge the credibility of a "religion" based on its beliefs.

I think it's safe to assume we disagree. Because that's exactly what I do. I do no judge on the fruits, but the beliefs/system.

The point of your belief is salvation, is it not?

So then ultimately the practical question is: what would keep you from salvation?

If believing the "wrong" things will bar someone from heaven no matter how sincerely they've tried to be good, then yes, one must judge based on belief.

If otoh, people who have sincerely tried to be good according to the dictates of their own belief systems will make it into heaven, then correct belief is clearly not the ultimate criterion. If it's not ultimately based on correct beliefs, then on what basis would one judge sincere desire to be good? Must be the fruits.

 

[Ozzie]

Which religion is the most practical? Why, how, or in what way is it the most practical?

How come you don't think Girls On Trampolines is the most practical? *pouts*

Buddhism. Because it addresses mind and physiology, and incidentally accommodates spirit.

 

[Katzpur]

Really? Isn't a "creed" basically the same thing as a "doctrine"? They come up as synonyms in my thesaurus. And clearly Mormonism has doctrines. Of course, I'm sure you know what you're talking about when you say your faith isn't creedal...not trying to challenge that! What am I missing?

I suppose that, using the term "creed" very loosely, it could be said to mean "doctrine." My dictionary actually defines it as "a brief statement of religious belief; a confession of faith; a specific statement of this kind, accepted as authoritative by a church."

When I say that we are a non-credal Church, I am thinking in terms of our focus on both personal revelation and by revelation through our Prophets. We believe that spiritual knowledge is gained through such revelation, and also through study, faith, reason, science, and experience. From the very beginning of our religion's existance, LDS prophets have stressed the gospel's inclusive commitment to truth. I could provide you with some actual quotes to illustrate what I'm trying to say, if it would help, but my point is that we believe that we are bound to accept truth, regardless of where we may find it. Our religion embraces every true law or principle, every particle of wisdom that is or has ever been known in the world. We believe that all truth -- religious, philosophical, moral, religious, etc. -- is incorporated into the gospel. In order to believe this, we have to also believe that God is continuing to enlighten and inspire men and women all over the world and will continue to do so as long as this world exists. We see creeds as establishing boundaries and, therefore, as limiting our progress in our search for truth.

 

[lilithu]

I suppose that, using the term "creed" very loosely, it could be said to mean "doctrine." My dictionary actually defines it as "a brief statement of religious belief; a confession of faith; a specific statement of this kind, accepted as authoritative by a church."

I take "creed" to mean "litmus test." Creed is the set of beliefs that you must believe in order to be considered to be a member of said religious group. For example: for many, the beliefs stated in the Nicene creed define what it means to be Christian.

UU is non-credal in that we have no such set of mandatory beliefs.

I would not call Islam non-credal in that I'm pretty sure that you have to believe in the Shahadah* in order to be considered Muslim.

(*There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet.)

I'm surprised to hear you say that Mormonism is non-credal but will accept your word on it.

 

[Katzpur]

I take "creed" to mean "litmus test." Creed is the set of beliefs that you must believe in order to be considered to be a member of said religious group. For example: for many, the beliefs stated in the Nicene creed define what it means to be Christian.

That little word "must" is a pretty important one. There is nothing in Mormonism that is comparable to the Nicene Creed. The Articles of Faith would probably be the closest thing we we to a creed, but we do not consider them as something a person "must believe" or else be asked out of the Church. Joseph Smith said, "I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels good not to be trammelled."

UU is non-credal in that we have no such set of mandatory beliefs... I'm surprised to hear you say that Mormonism is non-credal but will accept your word on it.

Well, it's relative, I guess. When compared to UU's, we're probably pretty credal at that. When compared to other Christians, we're not. I think that, for us, the idea is that God isn't through talking to us and that we won't be bound by a written statement that puts any limits on what God may choose to reveal in the future or on our personal understanding.

 

[TashaN]

UU is non-credal in that we have no such set of mandatory beliefs.

That's why i see UU as a society meetings and services more than a plain religion.

 

[Quiddity]

The point of your belief is salvation, is it not?

So then ultimately the practical question is: what would keep you from salvation?

If believing the "wrong" things will bar someone from heaven no matter how sincerely they've tried to be good, then yes, one must judge based on belief.

If otoh, people who have sincerely tried to be good according to the dictates of their own belief systems will make it into heaven, then correct belief is clearly not the ultimate criterion. If it's not ultimately based on correct beliefs, then on what basis would one judge sincere desire to be good? Must be the fruits.

Well, sincerity is certainly something that will be considered (Highly considered in fact). After all, I do believe in a Just God. But it doesn’t necessarily have to follow that what you believe doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church believes that “the normative means of salvation is through the Church and its graces”. But you will not find the Church defining what normative actually means. Why? Because every person’s heart and situation is unique and with such complexities only God can know what that encompasses.

So although sincerity matters, so does what you believe. It would be like a man just coming to understand that cannibalism is wrong. Once he understands that something is wrong, he is bound to submit to what is right. He is essentially one step closer to what is “normative”.

So salvation is acquired by the state of your heart (sincerity) in conjunction to what you know.

Hope that was clear.

 

[athanasius]

Well, sincerity is certainly something that will be considered (Highly considered in fact). After all, I do believe in a Just God. But it doesn’t necessarily have to follow that what you believe doesn’t matter. The Catholic Church believes that “the normative means of salvation is through the Church and its graces”. But you will not find the Church defining what normative actually means. Why? Because every person’s heart and situation is unique and with such complexities only God can know what that encompasses.

So although sincerity matters, so does what you believe. It would be like a man just coming to understand that cannibalism is wrong. Once he understands that something is wrong, he is bound to submit to what is right. He is essentially one step closer to what is “normative”.

So salvation is acquired by the state of your heart (sincerity) in conjunction to what you know.

Hope that was clear.

Good answer. Well thought out!

 

[lilithu]

Well, sincerity is certainly something that will be considered (Highly considered in fact). After all, I do believe in a Just God. But it doesn’t necessarily have to follow that what you believe doesn’t matter.

I'm not saying that belief doesn't matter. I am saying that it's not what matters most. Again, what do you believe will exclude a person from salvation? *If* you believe that it's possible for a person to get into heaven even tho one doesn't believe that Jesus is God and is not a member of the Church, then it isn't right belief that's essential for salvation.

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not saying that belief doesn't matter. I am saying that it's not what matters most. Again, what do you believe will exclude a person from salvation? *If* you believe that it's possible for a person to get into heaven even tho one doesn't believe that Jesus is God and is not a member of the Church, then it isn't right belief that's essential for salvation.

That doesn't mean that at all. What you are doing is using an exception (like the thief on the cross) and using it as a norm across the board. You wouldn't do that in the real life would you? Would you excuse "sincerity" with something like stealing, rape, or murder? Sure it's possible that the person committing such things sincerely was trying to do the right thing, but sincerity only takes you so far, don't it?. As they say "with knowledge comes responsibility". So sincerity is essential, so long as it's followed by unintentional ignorance, lack of consent, or lack of full knowledge. Surely, you don't believe a person who has full knowledge, complete consent of the will, on a grave matter (rape, murder, theft, etc.) can be excused by his/her sincerity? So knowledge and consent can and do trump sincerity. That's why I said, "So salvation is acquired by the state of your heart (sincerity) in conjunction to what you know."

 

[lilithu]

That doesn't mean that at all. What you are doing is using an exception (like the thief on the cross) and using it as a norm across the board.

That depends on how many non-Christians one believes makes into heaven. If only a very few do, then yes, it's the exception. If however, many do, then it's not the exception.

Would you excuse "sincerity" with something like stealing, rape, or murder? Sure it's possible that the person committing such things sincerely was trying to do the right thing, but sincerity only takes you so far, don't it?. As they say "with knowledge comes responsibility". So sincerity is essential, so long as it's followed by unintentional ignorance, lack of consent, or lack of full knowledge. Surely, you don't believe a person who has full knowledge, complete consent of the will, on a grave matter (rape, murder, theft, etc.) can be excused by his/her sincerity?

Are you equating being a non-Christian with being a thief, rapist, or murderer? Of course ethical conduct is essential, which takes us back to the "fruits," not the beliefs. Linking the holding of beliefs other than Christian with stealing, rape, or murder is a straw man argument at best.

 

[Quiddity]

That depends on how many non-Christians one believes makes into heaven. If only a very few do, then yes, it's the exception. If however, many do, then it's not the exception.

I haven't the foggiest idea how many will or will not. Why does matter for my position to have merit? You lost me...

Are you equating being a non-Christian with being a thief, rapist, or murderer? Of course ethical conduct is essential, which takes us back to the "fruits," not the beliefs. Linking the holding of beliefs other than Christian with stealing, rape, or murder is a straw man argument at best.

I am making no such connection. What I said applies whether you are catholic or not. If you think sincerity is what is most important then that's fine, but I do not. I believe sincerity only takes you so far. I'm rather suprised you would think otherwise.