Indeed

I don't give a damn....but if you try to preach to me, spread the word of god, I do.

I agree with you Crazyheart everyone whether they believe in a higher power or not seem to adhere to the golden rule in some form or another.

Wouldn't the world be a wonderful place if Meanness in the name of religion could be abolished and kindness in the name of religion took its place.

Atheisto: I would respect your opinion eventhough I wouldn't necessarily agree with it that is what Agape love does.

Crazyheart,"Do you care if I am Hindi, Protestant, Catholic, Jew or gentile?"

Is there a reason you left off Satanism, the Mormans of Sault Lake City, etc.....? I would suggest that similar moral codes are easier to accept even if they do not have similar theologies. Those with disimilar moral codes such as Satanism are maybe harder to not speak up about. Although we do live in America so we tend to let everyone do their thing.

Even the bible states that God speaks in many and various ways:

Hebrews 1:1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, (NIV)

Romans 1:19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Also Acts.17:22-28

I suppose what I am saying is that I believe that some religions can bring us to the same God but that Jesus came to unite us.

God dances, cool!

Hi Atheisto:

Aren't you and Star Stuff and other absolutist atheists posting here on wondercafe preaching atheism and scientism?

Scientific findings are not absolute. The scientific certainty of Newtonian physics has given way to Uncertainty, Relativity, Relativism, Complementarity, Quantum Physisc and Particle Physics, and it seems quite likely that even those will be overtaken by new scientfic insights sometime in the not too distant future.

You will, of course, assure me that you are not preaching atheism or scientism. Good!

Nearly every modern (as in written down somewhere) religion seems to have started with the same basic insight that "all are one" and then been colored by cultural- and self-projection. Each religion, over time with its own sleight-of-hand, leaps from that initial insight into establishing rules about what to eat and who to hate.

When you examine the pre-existing conditions of a religion's progenitors and constrast them with our own, it is hardly a surprise that their creeds and practices are nonsensical and/or immoral and in either case outdated. We should keep that same ancient insight, but supplement it with fresh rational inquiry rather than keep resusciating it with brutish superstition.

Who's preaching? I don't care for converts, just common sense.

Yes, Ergo, I couldn't agree more. Amost every religion was founded on the mystical experience of universal at-one-ment, and then fell away from its mystical roots into doctrines, dogmatism, and absolutism.

We'd do well to re-discover the mystical roots of our faith, and then update the interpretations, augmenting the ancient insighst with scientific, social, psychological and environmental insights of our day and age, and leaving the process open-ended to allow for continuous evolution. This, I think, is what they mean by "process theology."

There is no alternative to religion as there is no alternative to alchemy.  Both systems are outdated.  The difference is that we found that out with alchemy and swiftly got rid of it.

If religion evolves it will be to a more social concept for charitable deeds and company and without any of the ceremonial mumbo jumbo. 

Jesus is noted for saying things that indicate that the Kingdom is inside us. I get there (connect withthe sacred) when I am Being rather than frantically Doing.  Indeed this is a Mystery and is available to everyone, whether they practise a religion or not.

Yes, atheisto, I happen to agree. Traditionalist religion is outdated. My replacement for traditionalist religion is to delve deeply into the pure, undifferentiated experience, which originally gave rise to religion, and re-interpert that experience in the light of modern, scientific, psycho-social and environmental insights.

If our universe is in a state of synthesis—and you acknowledge the possiblity that it is—then analysis alone enables us only to understand it analytically, not experience it synthetically, as the unitive and undifferentiated whole that it really is.

To experience reality as it really is, we have to experience it unthinkingly, non-analytically, and unconceptualized. This pure experience of reality—also known as mystical experience—has been interpreted by ancients with ancient concepts which have now become outdated. What we moderns have to do, first of all, is to experience the pure experience, and then interpret it in the modern scientific concepts and context of our day and age: the long awaited union between science and mysticism, reason and intuition.

I wish I were a scientist like you, and be able to state what I want to say in more scientific terms. But, as it is, I am an unschooled farmer and backwoods mystic and philosopher, and all I have at my disposal are my mystical experiences and unschooled words.

Yes, because I believe that if you are not a follower of Jesus, you are lost.

Yes.

Yes, and yes. I want everyone to receive the free gift of salvation offered by God.

Btw, if your god isn't the same god as my God, I really do believe my God is better than yours.

Jubilee I guess we will all have to wait until the end times and see who is correct.

Yes it does.  If I am to claim that I care for you as a person, I cannot ignore or reject those things that make up who you are.  We do not live in individual vacuums; we are social animals who develop relationships.  This means that the choices you make, the beliefs you hold dear, the rituals you practice will affect me and vice-versa.

As you indicate, you are a Christian and as such you have come into contact with this message through the scriptures of Christianity.  Already we can see that your beliefs and religious life affects those you are in contact with.

I would tentatively agree that awareness of our common predicament is a first step.  I disagree that in order to understand this, we must throw off any religous framework that informs how we view the world (indeed, I don't believe that we can remove these lenses).  The acceptance of common situation with others (in the guise of common species, common community, common planet, even as far as common universe) has not come from some objective stance I entered outside myself; it has come through my vantage point as a young, white, middle-class, university-educated Christian.

There are not many times I gasp on Wondercafe, Jubilee, but this made me gasp.You are saying that your God is better than any other God. How will we ever find any kind of concensus in this world with attitudes like yours? Let me get this straight if you are an evangelical Christian, the God, in your opinion, of Catholics, Jews, and dare I say United Church , are not as good as an Evangelical God. This is hog wash, if I may say so. It is also arrogant and self serving, imo.

 Notices that things are getting hotter here than over in the Cafe...

Suggests everyone take a 24hr break from this particular discussion and then return to it later once everyone has had a well deserved break.

I'll put on fresh Tea and Coffee for everyone.

I am in total agreement with both Crazyheart and Arminius.

I have been able to get along with most folks regardless of race colour or creed.  I am called to do that as a Christian and a pluralist.

I do not need to preach to anyone.  Nor do I need to be preached at.  I do not mock others beliefs or non-beliefs.  I do resent being preached at.  Many funadmentalist/literalists and atheists do that as well.  As I have said before the person who thinks they have the only correct path whether it be in religion or scientism is living in a delusion.  They are diluding themselves.

Arminius, you may be a simple farmer but you present a lot of wisdom.  Blessings and Peace.

Fundamentalist/literalist Christians please be advised that there are many interpretations to the sacred scriptures and you do not have the only correct one.  There are some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world and many of them claim to have the only right path.  Pure delusion.  Blessings and Peace.

Shalom

Mate

Hold on there a second, crazyheart. Don't read things into what I said that aren't rightly there.

I believe my God is best. I never claimed exclusive license in worshipping him.

Since there is only one God all folks who look to the Divine are looking to that one God.  What varies is their concept of the Divine.  This does not change the Divine but represents the great variations of their concepts.

Shalom

Mate

"Btw, if your god isn't the same god as my God, I really do believe my God is better than yours.", Jubilee, this is what you said. Do you want to amend it?

Mate, I agree.

Every other sect supposes itself in possession of all truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong; like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some distance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear, though in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them.  (Benjamin Franklin)

Sounds a lot like "All paths lead to the Divine".

Looks like our paths might cross at the next Inn, what say we have have a beer?

You do know that quote-mining is considered poor argument and in poor taste, Star Stuff?  If you have something to say, say it.  If all you have to offer are quotes, we can look them up ourselves.

I think they are of great value as they offer a glimpse into another's insight.  Do you like to call it "quote mining" and view it "in poor taste" because that is a popular trend right now?  There are books written on collections of quotes, are they in bad taste?

It's a public forum, and I am free to offer these gems if I like.  There's no harm done, and I compose my own thoughts when I have the time.

Witch, can I join you and Mate at the inn?

Certainly not.

I worship the one true God. That doesn't mean only we moderate Calvinists do so.

jubilee, does it not give you at least a little pause to consider that all the billions of people who have worshiped all of the thousands of gods which have come & gone, all those people also were equally convinced as yourself that theirs was the "one true god"?

Witch

Absolutely on both points.

Shalom

Mate

I do not believe for one moment that exclusivism has any place in the Christian faith.  Jesus showed none.  He did not ask if one was a Baptist or a Roman Catholic or an Anglican etc.  In fact he chose to eat and associate with the "dregs" of society and called on his followers to do the same.  What he opposed was oppression which the Parisees seemed to support.

Shalom

Mate

I think I have to disagree on this.  Not with a spirit of "my God is better than yours", or claiming that inter-religious dialogue and commonalities are useless.  My disagreement is born more from caution; by stating "there is only one God" we run roughshod over people whose faith is focused on a multitude of deities, or a person for whom the concept of deity is unimportant.

How do you know this?

nighthawk

Different cultures think differently about many things.  Apparently many of the Japanese find it difficult to understand the actions of Jesus.  To them they seem illogical.

Who are we to say that the spirit of God has not spoken to each culture in a way they could best understand?  Do we think that we are so special that God came to us alone and no others?  It is good for the ego but hardly believable.  Western Christendom is far different from Eastern Christendom. 

What is called orthodoxy today does not go back to the church founded by the disciples.  It is the creation of the reformation.

A close reading will show that behind each faith are to basic issues, justice and compassion.  Where you see many deities the basis is a belief in one Ultimate Reality, which we have labelled God while others call this Reality Allah, Vishnu, the Great Spirit and so on.

As Christians I think it is best that we follow in the footsteps of Jesus and leave any judging up to God.  The Bible is very clear on this issue.

Shalom

Mate

It is possible that the God known in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures has appeared in other guises to other nations and communities.  Why is it impossible that Vishnu has come to the Christian in a different guise?

My point is that saying "all religions follow God" (or something similar), when coming from a Christian's mouth is erasing what is culturally distinct in other religions, even those who follow a deity.

 I do not necessarily see many deities.  I do know that there are people who see different deities, and it is imperious of us to say that we really know the greater reality to which their faith aspires.  There are also plenty of Buddhists for whom theistic belief is irrelevant.  To claim that they are still serving or following God is to ignore what they are trying to say to us.

I agree.  I have strived to avoid any judging or condemnation.  Indeed, my concept of interreligious dialogue involves refraining from any judging of other people's faith until both parties have had a chance to speak, and allow commonalities and differences to arise naturally.  I believe it is far more judgmental to insist that all religions are following God, despite what the adherants believe.

nighthawk

I cannot see that I am erasing anything.  I am recognized that there are cultural differences and differences in conceptualization.   Heavens there are cultural differences between the western church and the eastern church.  There are conceptualization differences between one group of Christians an another. 

Is someone going to say that s/he is the only one out of some 22 000 others who has it the only correct way?  Every group is out of step but my particular group. 

Buddhists speak of returning to the source when they finallly achieve nirvana.  The Source is the source of all life.  Karen Armstrong who has studied and written about Buddhism has pointed out that this source is in effect the same as what we refer to as the Ultimate Reality.  They will not give this source a name because they feel that to name this sacred source is to commit blasphemy.  In the rest of the world God has a thousand names.

I am not at all ignoring what the Buddhist is trying to say to us.  Much of what they have to say is essentially what we call Christian in nature.  Gautama Sidharta had a mystical experience as did Mohammed, Ghandi and Jesus as did many other folks throughout the millenia including the prophets.

Karen Armstrong has persuasively shown in her book "The Great Transformation" that all of the world's great faiths are indeed founded on the two principles of justice and compassion.

So, yes, many paths lead to the one Ultimate Reality, which we call God.

If a person is relating to God as they understand it they are still relating to the one and only God.  There are not two or a thousand.

Shalom

Mate

Hi Nighthawk, 

Nicely expressed!  I think you have clearly pointed out the limitations of the "all paths lead to the divine" argument.  "All paths lead to the divine" can be a useful metaphor for theists of different persuasions, but it breaks down when we come to secular or religious humanism, non-theistic traditions, and so on. 

As an aside, I think that Gretta Vosper's argument about distilling all world faiths down to their core values is equally problematic.   In my view, belief in God and values exist in a continuous loop, and influence each other profoundly.

Thanks nighthawk...agreed...and thanks for striving to explain it.

It does make a difference to me also.  it isn't a negative though.

It makes the same difference as does understanding how often we use idioms in our chatting.   If you were born & raised in Canada, then I can likely say "he shoots/he scores" when you do something awesome or "run with it" or "run with the ball"..but if you were born elsewhere you may not have a clue what I am talking about.   For a while, translate your own text into "global english" removing all references to your culture..

Basically, the recognition of what makes us different can be the beginning of great conversations.

I would like to see how this belief breaks down in any way. 

There are some core values that are generally part of the basis of every one of the great faiths.  What I see Gretta V. doing is judging other cultures and their values on the basis of her own opinion.  Of course my belief is in part my opinion but does come from a great deal of study and is supported by Christian theologians whose intellect and understanding I trust.  Indeed talk is cheap.

Basically the precepts of justice and compassion are the basis of all of the world's great faiths.  These faiths cannot be judged on how some of its followers behave.  Imagine basing a judgment of Christianity on the likes of Fred Phelps or Falwell or Robertson.  None of them reflect the foundation of justice and compassion.

Christian missionaries ought not to be trying to raid and take members of other faiths.  They should be trying to help the needy and oppressed.  We do not have to preach.  If we have something to offer they will see it in our lives and ask.  If they don't see anything in our lives to ask about than perhaps we are not living as we should.

Shalom

Mate

Yes, there are differences.  There are no sharp distinctions here, only fuzzy edges.  I am simply not as willing as you to claim that I as a Christian and an abstract Hindu or Buddhist are all following the same God with different conceptualizations.

That is not what I have ever said, and I am finding it frustrating to talk with you when you have twice now insinuated I claim to have the only correct model.  I would point out your own imperious nature in insisting that you have objectively determined God's nature, and that it must be the underlying principle to all (or even many) religious belief.

I am not familiar with this part of Karen Armstrong's writing.  If indeed she has concluded that the Christian God and notions of Buddhist nirvana and source of all life are one and the same, I disagree with her.  There may be similarities.  There may be many points where the beliefs about the nature of reality merge.  I believe there are still plenty of places where they diverge.  The Christian notion of God as I am coming to understand it through process theology is not abstract Ultimate Reality.  Not all liberal or progressive Christians have moved away from a relational, personal God.

Are all mystical experiences equal?  Must they all come from a common source, or relate to a single ultimate reality?

This may be so.  Shared values and shared visions of the ultimate nature of reality are not one and the same.

Again, what you are calling the Ultimate Reality may not be as singular as you would like.  The Buddhist notion of nirvana, interpreted as the release from all attachment, is not an obviously Christian ideal.  There may be much we can learn from dialogue with those Buddhists, and much they can learn from Christianity.  In dialogue and mutual transformation we may move closer to unity, but this is not something we can or should declare has already happened.

Why not?  Why must there be one single ultimate reality that all religions are really pointing to?  John Cobb once wrote about three different versions of the ultimate reality as seen by different faiths; he described theistic, cosmic and acosmic realities, relating them to the great monotheistic religions (most notable Christianity as it is the trajectory he writes from), Buddhism (a specific sect, whose name I can't recall), and Hinduism (ie Brahman).  To simply describe all three as the same does violence to them all.

nighthawk

First of all I am presenting another view.  I have never clamed to have it right.  I suspect as in all cases that we all have a small part of the truth.  Could I be wrong?  Sure, but in no way do I feel that I have all the answers.  This is a position that I feel I have been led to as I follow the path the Divine has given me.

Christianity is about a relationship with God.  It is not about doctrine or dogma at all.  These are man made ideas designed to try to come to grips with the one Ultimate Reality.  Since I do not believe that one can define or describe the Divine I find no problem with using the term "Ultimate Reality".  All of our terms for God are simply meaphors.

It seems to me that one of the big problems facing Christians is their idea that "believe in" leads to the idea that one must believe exactly what a person says about, say Jesus.  The original word translated into faith or belief in is "pistis" which is better translated as "trust".  It seems to me very simply put;  don't try to put God in a box but simply trust in the Divine.

On other issues we will have to agree to disagree.  With that I have no problem.  I am simply saying we are all dealing with the one and only Divine origina of creation.  There is only one God.  I do not believe that any of our concepts are even close to grasping the true nature of the Divine:  not the Christian nor the Muslim or anyone elses.

For me as a Christian I accept that Jesus was indeed the Messiah and I have committed myself to following in his footsteps.  As a pluralist I also realize the validity to be found in all of the world's great faiths.  Many would say that "Then you are not a true Christian."  They most certainly are entitled to their opinion but it is God I trust.

Shalom

Mate

When used properly they enlighten us and enliven our compositions.  I have not seen you use quotes thusly.  Plunked into a discussion without any accompanying thoughts or discussion does nothing to further dialogue here.  I call it quote-mining because that is what it appears to be; rather than offer an original thought you throw a quote of mild relevance into the mix and leave it at that.  It is annoying when someone throws a quotation from the Bible without any conversation, and it would be hypocritical of me to not point it out in your posts as well.

You clearly are free to post (almost) whatever you wish here.  I am free to comment on what you post.  Quote books offer us a chance to read thoughts by famous people.  They can get us thinking.  If every time I talked to a friend she replied with a quote, I would soon be seeking out new people to hang with.

No doubt.  Perhaps we will have more to agree (or disagree!) on once I read some more Karen Armstrong.

 Atheisto:

Certainly you know how to speak to each of us without pretending you're better than the rest of us...

Surely you can engage in respectful conversation and come across as interested in dialogue rather than trying to convert us all to your atheism...

Surely you have more dignity than to continually take every single comment on wondercafe.ca as a personal insult...

Peace,

Adam

Have you sold all of your posessions yet?

Thank you for the thoughts everyone, and I hope the conversation continues.

So, it is you who decides what is "proper" use?  That seems like a haughty self-awarded position to me.

Well, eyes are of little use if the mind is blind.

I've only done that a few times, and they are of direct relevance, not mild (your attempt to minimize it is apparent) - to the topic or previous post. Usually they are offered within additional comment.  And so what if they are a stand alone?  Is it really that bothersome, or are you just looking for something to complain about?

But if a snippet of those quote collections is offered here, it makes your face turn purple. Why is that?

Yes, me too.  But forum entires are not equivilant to a person to person conversation, and again, I don't reply with a quote "every time" now do I?  Please be accurate in your observations and accusations.

See?  I did this whole post with no quote!

Ah heck, I couldn't resist:

All thinking men are atheists.  (Ernest Hemingway)

.