Religion vs. Religion

[Dyothelite]

I'm fully well aware of this fact. I was simply making the point, however, that the concept of the divinity of Jesus was well underway 200 years before the Nicean council.

Have you heard of the Q Document?

 

Right on, but formal declarations about what that meant were never formalized until the Councils.

 

Sure it was written that he was the Son of God..... but that statment had to be fully defined and justified as a real concept.

[Dyothelite]

Another thing that is important is to be able to define what it means to be united with God. If a swami in the mountains reaches enlightenment what is he acheiving? If you define it as reconciliation of his human mind to a universal conscioiusness then the distinction between one enlightenmed master and another becomes vague.

 

I always like to say.... in all my historical research....Jesus was the best that ever did it. No one in any culture is credited with being so adept after coming out of the desert (or bodhi tree...etc etc), and have so much ability just a year into his ministry. Atleast from a historical research aspect this statement is verifiable true.

[Buffy]

Thwack! Down boys!

 

As starter of this thread, I'll now clarify what I think should and should not be discussed here, so please understand these guidlines:

 

1) That different religions have conflicting beliefs is a *given* in this thread, so please heed the calls *NOT* to argue which is "the one and only truth." We'll deal with that elsewhere.

 

2) This thread is about how we *deal* with these conflicts, both philosophically and practically. In order to do this, you need to take a hard look at the *implications* of what various religions say should be done with non-believers (religious or not), and in many cases more importantly, how conflicting interpretations of how the world works cause conflict in resolving social and political issues. This is where the discussion can get uncomfortable, because the actions or dictates are in many cases a violation of other precepts of these religions at the simplest level and cause major policy conflicts or even wars at the more extreme.

 

3) The reason this thread was started is to deal with the fact that this issue is *avoided* because it creates moral quandries about commonly accepted values. Unfortunately the most common response to the issue (and we've seen *a lot* of this in this thread) is to admit that there's conflict but argue that there are no problems to deal with, in most cases by quickly turning the issue into "its all the atheists fault" and tacitly saying "all us religions have to fight against the God-haters." This desire to switch topics is indeed avoiding the topic, and some of the flaming above is justified (just turn it down folks).

 

4) The definition of "Religion" is a subject of debate in other threads, and should not be continued here. I will note though that CWes' and Pyro's point of Religion vs. Human Philosophical Interpretation Of It was actually dealt with earlier in the thread between me and South, and this is in my view another example of AVOIDING THE ISSUE. SO, "Religion" here is defined as any personal belief system that has a major sociological impact--that is, its got a big enough following so that the conflicts addressed herein have a significant impact on society. Thus, its important to realize that while specific instances can certainly be discussed here, the issue is really the phenominological problem of reconciling a group of possibly completely undefined religious philosophies that are adhered to by large groups as "incontrovertable truth."

 

5) Another way to avoid the topic of this thread is to claim that its all simply about abstract beliefs and that the conflicts have no sociological impact whatsoever. The fractious nature of the major religions can be interpreted as minor, but Martin Luther's 99 theses caused wars. Dismissiveness of mainstream Evangelicals toward Pentacostals may seem minor to the wars now going on between Sunni and Shi'a, but both rend families (not all, but enough to measure epidemiologically). (As an aside, a facinating recent documentary on the conflicts within the California Evangelical church was the topic of a documentary on Lonnie Frisbee concerning the splits in key Evangelical groups in the 60s and 70s: keep checking the link, as it may become available over the internet).

 

6) Conversely, a listing of the conflicts doesn't help, because what I would like to see talked about here are 1) the *nature* of the problems, and 2) what we can *do* about them. You're welcome to use examples--I argue its essential--but again, listing them is not the *point* here.

 

So, to comment on an earlier point made by CWes:

That is not the point of this thread. The point of this thread was to determine if one's religion believes anothers is false, not to debate why one's religion feels that way.

...

Do other religions hold fast to the teachings of their holy men and holy writings? Possibly. Does this make them right? No.

...

I would expect any true believer in their religion to say the same things about their religion. That being that 1) their god(s) is the rightful ruler of all things, 2) that their holy writings show the way their god thinks and wishes their followers to think, and 3) that one must woship in accordance with their god's wishes to be considered a worshipper of that god.

This simply sets up the issue posed in 1) above, and is not the point of the thread. The fact that religions have conflicts comes from the fact that they *do already* have conflicts, and although it may be germaine to backing various theses proposed here, the actual "reasons" why one religion logically argues the fallacy of other religions is not the *goal* here. The issue is dealing with the the social impact of the fact that these arguments *exist at all* and are used as a weapon to draw adherents from one group to the other and maintain societal power which promotes those groups.

 

So the conclusion:

Thus the only resulting question to be asked is which one is right?

Is very wrong. I don't give a damn why someone thinks their religion is the only true one. What I want to know is what are we all going to do about it given that absolute religious beliefs cause obvious conflict. If you want to argue that the only solution is for everyone to convert to a single religion, that is a perfectly reasonable answer, but it will beg explication for how that is going to be carried out without a huge cost to society and with much more specificity than "it will just take a really long time," or "the Apocalypse will take care of it."

 

Now, I'd *LOVE* to hear some discussion about this "what we do about it" issue, which has yet to really be addressed in this thread at all. Please try to keep in mind these points because its way to easy to just avoid this really difficult issue that's extremely relevant to many of the major issues of our world societies today.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

[hallenrm]

Dear Buffy,

 

I can really appreciate your post above. But, if such are your concerns for initiating this thread should it not be more appropriatly located in the Social forums rather than the Theology forum.

 

That's only a thought! :thumbs_up

[Buffy]

...if such are your concerns for initiating this thread should it not be more appropriatly located in the Social forums rather than the Theology forum....

Are you wanting to avoid this subject hallenrm? :thumbs_up

 

I could put it anywhere, but the way we use the Theology forum here its perfectly located.

 

Furthermore, have you considered the fact that the solutions I'm trying to drum up here might in fact relate to changes in religious beliefs themselves, even if you want to insist on constricting the definition of "Theology" into a tiny rigid bucket?

 

Since I started this thread months ago, I've had some interesting discussions with a friend of mine (an Presbyterian Minister) who is a professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. This is actually quite a hot topic among theologians these days...

 

Who me?

Buffy

[Turtle]

Thwack! Down boys!

Yes Mam.

 

Now, I'd *LOVE* to hear some discussion about this "what we do about it" issue, which has yet to really be addressed in this thread at all. Please try to keep in mind these points because its way to easy to just avoid this really difficult issue that's extremely relevant to many of the major issues of our world societies today.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

 

Last night I listened to author Joel Garreau talk about his book Radical Evolution for 3 hours on the radio, and if I understood him correctly, his answer to "what do we do about it" , is wait for the believers to die out. As people are born into a reasoning world, it is what they know and so what they practice. Perhaps only time will tell.

 

Radical Evolution:The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies -- and What It Means to Be Human by Joel Garreau

http://www.garreau.com/

[Buffy]

Last night I listened to author Joel Garreau talk about his book Radical Evolution for 3 hours on the radio, and if I understood him correctly, his answer to "what do we do about it" , is wait for the believers to die out...

Defeatist pessimism does no good, and methinks he will be waiting with Didi and Gogo for a very long time....

 

Let's go. Yes, let's go. (They do not move), :phones:

Buffy

[Turtle]

Defeatist pessimism does no good, and methinks he will be waiting with Didi and Gogo for a very long time....

 

Let's go. Yes, let's go. (They do not move), :phones:

Buffy

 

Actually, Garreau painted himself an optimist in his radio interview, and I haven't read Beckett's work to offer any commentary on it. As for myself, well, I think I have made clear that I will go the way of challenging the weak foundations of religious belief, and that without such challenges little will change. :phones:

[Buffy]

Actually, Garreau painted himself an optimist in his radio interview

Not surprising, but personally it sure sounds like "Stay the course" to me! :phones:

As for myself, well, I think I have made clear that I will go the way of challenging the weak foundations of religious belief

That's fine, its just off topic here except insofar as to use it in some very relevant way to back up Garreau's "option" (or dare I say, "non-option" as seemingly advocating inaction).

 

My reference to Beckett really is based on the notion that while--in addition to other similar reasons--religion continues to be central to political power, we will not see any general decline and disappearance of religion over time. I know you'd like it to "just go away," but doing so does require action, not inaction, and action has consequences: As has been shown in these and other threads, active change or diminishment of other's religions tends to have the opposite of the intended effect. If you don't like your daughter's boyfriend, telling her to get rid of him will have the opposite effect, even if he's a Meth-dealing Hell's Angel. Pretty much the same with believers in particular religions. It is possible to convert people, but its not necessarily under your own control.

 

Do you have some suggestions about how to convert people? Note that while the discussion of "atheism is not a religion" is not relevant here, the notion of "conversion" to *any* other belief system is critical to any argument like the one being hinted at here. As with any well-subscribed belief system, there will be defenders of the faith that you are converting people from, and as a general rule, those defenders will use any means necessary to avoid losing believers. Although it may be possible to convert individuals using a specific methodology, you must still deal with the conflict between groups in avoiding any loss of members. Have any ideas about that?

 

Habit is a great deadener, :phones:

Buffy

[catholiboy]

Now, I'd *LOVE* to hear some discussion about this "what we do about it" issue, which has yet to really be addressed in this thread at all. Please try to keep in mind these points because its way to easy to just avoid this really difficult issue that's extremely relevant to many of the major issues of our world societies today.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

 

Has the option that there is NOTHING we can do about it occured to anyone here?

 

As long as the individual exists, there will be an incredible diversity of opinions. As long as everyone on the Earth doesn't follow scientism, there will never be one unified theory. There CAN never be one unified theory. As long as philosophy is a practice, and as long as Atheism/Theism just uses philosophy as another tool to "prove" their religion, philosophy will continue branching out until it's basically just a syndrome of beliefs, none of which can be reconciled with eachother, none of which can ever agree, and which will exist forever in concept and be taken up by the later generations. And where there is difference, there can only be narrow-minded conflict.

[Buffy]

Has the option that there is NOTHING we can do about it occured to anyone here?

Yah, I kinda mentioned that above, but if that's your argument, then that's actually the end of it.

 

Nothing left to do. Just give up. Don't bother. Move along, shows over.

 

My point being that this thread is about actually finding possible solutions or at least the catagorize some essential elements of the problems to be overcome. You mention a few in your post! Cool! I think they're relevant in discussing why certain solutions might be more difficult than others. Feel free to offer them at appropriate times!

 

But "there is no solution" does not need an advocate here, and as a negative, its not really provable anyway. Kinda like saying "heavier than air flight is impossible"...

 

Pushing people out of the box,

Buffy

[Boerseun]

I think catholiboy might indeed have a fair point.

 

Confronted by absolute beliefsets, we have to change the very foundations of their beliefs in order for them to accept and tolerate the others.

 

Imagine:

 

One of the defining pillars of Christianity is that their God is the one and only 'True God'. Muslims are instructed in the Q'uran to put infidels (infidels being anything other than Muslims) to the sword, or to enslave them if you happen to be in need of cheap infidel labour. Also, Allah is the one and only "True God" and Mohammed his prophet. Regardless of the fact that Allah and the Christian God are both the one and same God of Abraham, the instructions given by their respective "manuals" (the Bible and Q'uran) are irreconcilable, and will lead to conflict if accepted literally, as is seen by the actions of extremists of both flavours.

 

There is nothing we can do about it if we respect people's rights to religious freedom.

 

The only way out is through massive public education. But when we start watering down their absolute belief systems (via education) in order to avert this kind of conflict, we're meddling with their very religions; which we can't do if we respect individual freedoms.

 

In an nutshell, if we can convince Muslims and Christians to live side-by-side as happy neighbours, then we won't have Muslims and Christians anymore. Call them Chrislims, for want of a better term. Or Mustians, if the order of appearance is important to you.

 

What you're proposing is a bit like asking whether it'll be possible to have one plus one equal three. One is defined as one, a single entity, a single representative of whatever it is you're enumerating. And one plus one cannot equal three if one stays true to its definition as one. But fiddle with the sample a bit, add a little here and there until you end up with one point five, and, sure - one point five plus one point five does indeed give you three. But what you added there wasn't the original ones as defined in the original question. Same with religions claiming their deity to be the one and only. It's mutually exclusive, they simply cannot both exist without tampering with the original definition, the bedrock of the belief under discussion.

[cwes99_03]

While there has been a lot of posting in the past 5 days (I was going to multiquote but figured the post would be too large, and some of those posts have obviously drifted off topic), the thoughts all demonstrate basically two things.

 

1) a large portion of Hypography staff and highly reputable hypography members know a bit about some of the worlds major religions, but know little about the whole of any one religion or all of them, yet this does not stop them from accusing (strawman-ing) the religious adherents to those faiths. When it is demonstrated that their thoughts are false and unsupported they ignore these posts and continue on with their own flawed logic and say only they have the answer.

2) there are some here willing to discuss this religion vs religion thread as intended and in adherence to forum rules(Note: this is not a religion vs non-religion thread, so I don't see what value any aetheists have to add to this discussion except in identifying whether remarks made by the religious are supported by their own religion.), but they often do so by again making some assumptions about other faiths that are facts not held in evidence.

 

Before Boer or others go off on a tangent about religion being all about facts not held in evidence, I've already told them they are not welcome on the this thread if that is all they wish to discuss (and TBD has likewise told them so). Also, the theology forum exists with the basic assumption that each poster is entitled to the idea that their god does exist and that there is sound reasoning for belief in such. Thus it was not intended to be a come here and post why your religion is and should be the only one and ignore all others (as I stated several times to Turtle and TBD restated for me a couple of posts back.)

 

That being said, I also at one time suggested ( and really Buffy identified the intrareligious question in her opening post) that part of the issue is that according to most members on hypography, there are tens or even hundreds of "christian" religions, and many "muslim" factions, etc. So, I asked people to post whether or not some of these should even be considered religions at all, or if they really were human philosophies under the guise (name) of religion. This is already another thread and is still active, and for one to discuss this thread here, one must understand the difference between philosophy and religion.

 

Anyone wishing to discuss how or if we can reconcile the various religious beliefs (as some have already said we cannot and that is because a portion of the worlds religions believe their's is the only true belief) then I guess I would ask the mods to begin a new thread and close this one. This thread has becoming a whipping post for the aethistic crowd and a dumping post for those wishing to fight about what one religion actually believes.

[Buffy]

Same with religions claiming their deity to be the one and only. It's mutually exclusive, they simply cannot both exist without tampering with the original definition, the bedrock of the belief under discussion.

While its definitely true that the existing leaders of a religious group have a vested interest in orthodoxy, religions do evolve--Islam split, arguably the Protestant Reformation was a democratic revolution--and they can become quite equinanimous: An Evangelical I know once refered to Presbyterianism as "that milquetoast religion" which I thought could be considered an unconsious complement.

 

Point being that *maybe*--and I'm really trying not to lead here--there's something to the notion that to survive, religions must evolve, and they may in fact be doing so. It is in their interests not to foment infighting amongst themselves because it may lead to their doom. I think this is *exactly* why its so hard to bring out this discussion at all: its uncomfortable to move to accomodation, but the hesitation to discuss--rather than the alternative of open dismissal of other religions--is proof that something is happening.

 

There are many other parts to this, so don't get stuck on this tangent.

 

Love is but a song to sing, fear's the way we die, :D

Buffy

[cwes99_03]

Thwack! Down boys!

 

As starter of this thread, I'll now clarify what I think should and should not be discussed here, so please understand these guidlines:

 

1) That different religions have conflicting beliefs is a *given* in this thread, so please heed the calls *NOT* to argue which is "the one and only truth." We'll deal with that elsewhere.

 

2) This thread is about how we *deal* with these conflicts, both philosophically and practically. In order to do this, you need to take a hard look at the *implications* of what various religions say should be done with non-believers (religious or not), and in many cases more importantly, how conflicting interpretations of how the world works cause conflict in resolving social and political issues. This is where the discussion can get uncomfortable, because the actions or dictates are in many cases a violation of other precepts of these religions at the simplest level and cause major policy conflicts or even wars at the more extreme.

 

3) The reason this thread was started is to deal with the fact that this issue is *avoided* because it creates moral quandries about commonly accepted values. Unfortunately the most common response to the issue (and we've seen *a lot* of this in this thread) is to admit that there's conflict but argue that there are no problems to deal with, in most cases by quickly turning the issue into "its all the atheists fault" and tacitly saying "all us religions have to fight against the God-haters." This desire to switch topics is indeed avoiding the topic, and some of the flaming above is justified (just turn it down folks).

 

4) The definition of "Religion" is a subject of debate in other threads, and should not be continued here. I will note though that CWes' and Pyro's point of Religion vs. Human Philosophical Interpretation Of It was actually dealt with earlier in the thread between me and South, and this is in my view another example of AVOIDING THE ISSUE. SO, "Religion" here is defined as any personal belief system that has a major sociological impact--that is, its got a big enough following so that the conflicts addressed herein have a significant impact on society. Thus, its important to realize that while specific instances can certainly be discussed here, the issue is really the phenominological problem of reconciling a group of possibly completely undefined religious philosophies that are adhered to by large groups as "incontrovertable truth."

 

5) Another way to avoid the topic of this thread is to claim that its all simply about abstract beliefs and that the conflicts have no sociological impact whatsoever. The fractious nature of the major religions can be interpreted as minor, but Martin Luther's 99 theses caused wars. Dismissiveness of mainstream Evangelicals toward Pentacostals may seem minor to the wars now going on between Sunni and Shi'a, but both rend families (not all, but enough to measure epidemiologically). (As an aside, a facinating recent documentary on the conflicts within the California Evangelical church was the topic of a documentary on Lonnie Frisbee concerning the splits in key Evangelical groups in the 60s and 70s: keep checking the link, as it may become available over the internet).

 

6) Conversely, a listing of the conflicts doesn't help, because what I would like to see talked about here are 1) the *nature* of the problems, and 2) what we can *do* about them. You're welcome to use examples--I argue its essential--but again, listing them is not the *point* here.

 

So, to comment on an earlier point made by CWes:

 

This simply sets up the issue posed in 1) above, and is not the point of the thread. The fact that religions have conflicts comes from the fact that they *do already* have conflicts, and although it may be germaine to backing various theses proposed here, the actual "reasons" why one religion logically argues the fallacy of other religions is not the *goal* here. The issue is dealing with the the social impact of the fact that these arguments *exist at all* and are used as a weapon to draw adherents from one group to the other and maintain societal power which promotes those groups.

 

So the conclusion:

Is very wrong. I don't give a damn why someone thinks their religion is the only true one. What I want to know is what are we all going to do about it given that absolute religious beliefs cause obvious conflict. If you want to argue that the only solution is for everyone to convert to a single religion, that is a perfectly reasonable answer, but it will beg explication for how that is going to be carried out without a huge cost to society and with much more specificity than "it will just take a really long time," or "the Apocalypse will take care of it."

 

Now, I'd *LOVE* to hear some discussion about this "what we do about it" issue, which has yet to really be addressed in this thread at all. Please try to keep in mind these points because its way to easy to just avoid this really difficult issue that's extremely relevant to many of the major issues of our world societies today.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

 

 

Sorry, Buffy, my last post was in response to the 20 or more posts in front of this one, and a couple since. I glossed over this post a bit.

 

The points I have been trying to make are the following.

 

1) Some religions believe and will always believe that their religion is the only true one. Why? Because that is a major tennet of their religion. We cannot change that without changing their religion (which again brings us back to the religion vs philosophy thread, which is still undiscussed by yourself).

 

2) The only solutions are 1) to fight it out as some have seen fit to do evangelicals and muslims alike, 2) discuss the difference here and try to show which one is truly right by reasoning (against forum rules, and very difficult as many are unwilling to be reasonable, some would even say I myself am unreasonable), or 3) wait for the God or the gods to solve the issue for us. These are the only three solutions I can see and none of them can be done here on Hypography.

[Buffy]

I won't bother addressing most of that last post except to say its off-topic. To be different, I'll just call it a pot-kettle issue.

part of the issue is that according to most members on hypography, there are tens or even hundreds of "christian" religions, and many "muslim" factions, etc. So, I asked people to post whether or not some of these should even be considered religions at all, or if they really were human philosophies under the guise (name) of religion. This is already another thread and is still active, and for one to discuss this thread here, one must understand the difference between philosophy and religion.

Of course I consider the way that you frame this "philosophy vs. religion" issue as a perfect example of how religions dismiss their competition: "you practice a false Christianity" is one of the most common epithets used. But if it makes it easier for you, FORGET that one of the possible points of conflict is granting that there is more than one branch of Christianity, just focus on the conflicts with fundamentally different religions. Your tactic here simply seems to be to try to make the problem go away by saying "its all differences in human philosophy" which simply avoiding the issues associated with the abstract but demonstrably real notion that religions are in conflict and the results of that conflict have negative consequences that should be addressed by society, possibly to the *benefit* of religious belief.

Anyone wishing to discuss how or if we can reconcile the various religious beliefs (as some have already said we cannot and that is because a portion of the worlds religions believe their's is the only true belief)...

Do you agree with this thesis? I hope your next post in this thread will discuss this!

...then I guess I would ask the mods to begin a new thread and close this one. This thread has becoming a whipping post for the aethistic crowd and a dumping post for those wishing to fight about what one religion actually believes.

Speaking as the member who started this thread and not a mod, I will do with the thread what I want to within the rules of this forum. I have scolded those evil atheists who are off topic here, and I'm sorry if you think that its only you who is being repressed here, but you should be careful about reframing the debate to suit your opinions because that's actually the source of at least some of the "atheisitic" complaints that are perfectly valid commentary on the issue at hand.

 

You do not need to be religious in order to participate in this thread, nor do you need to be an "expert" in a particular religion to have a valid viewpoint. Those might be convenient ways to supress debate or change the subject, but they don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

And now back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress...

 

No one has a franchise on the truth, not even you senator, :D

Buffy

[hallenrm]

Now, I'd *LOVE* to hear some discussion about this "what we do about it" issue, which has yet to really be addressed in this thread at all. Please try to keep in mind these points because its way to easy to just avoid this really difficult issue that's extremely relevant to many of the major issues of our world societies today.

 

Thank you for your cooperation,

Buffy

Well, I have some thoughts, which appear to me atleast as original, simply because I have not come across them elsewhere.

 

The primary reason why there are conflicts between different religions at different places, for example, in India there is a conflict between fundamentalist Hindus and Muslims, in Iraq there is a conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims and across the prosperous western world today, there is a conflict between people who say they believe in the Jesus and those who say they believe in Allah and a similar story is repeated almost everywhere on the Planet Earth. These conflicts as Buffy has said are given, and she wants us to come up with ideas about what can be done about these conflicts.

 

The reason why I mentioned the existing conflicts was to show that conflicts arire regardless of the religious involved, wherever there are sizable communities of people believing in two or more religions. Why? I think economic factors are important. Wherever one community is visibly more prosperous than the other, there are conflicts. Let me take the example of India. In India Hindus are unquestionably more prosperous than Muslims, perhaps because many more of them underwent education strongly influenced by the modernism imported from the west. Muslims on the average are much more poorer and less educated. That is the primary reason why Muslim feel threatened by the Hindu majority. Mind you the 'affluent' Muslim is often an outsider to this conflict except when he has some political ambitions.

 

Muslims these days are up in arms against USA and UK for similar reasons as are the Palestinians against the Israeli Jews.

 

So, if someone accepts my above thesis, the only way out of such conflicts is to reduce inequality between communities both economically and educationally! :D