The same God hears all our prayers, despite our differences. All truth must lead to kindness mercy, forgiveness, and love of our neighbours.
One God, Many Paths
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
The statement is wonderful, the point I was considering is how many will take that to heart, letting go of the self aspect?
It is also a challenge for people of all Faiths that embrace the Oneness of God, how do we choose to embrace that Oneness?
The hesitation I see in the statement is in comparing the affirmations and the negations.
"The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions". (Affirmation)
"She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men". (Affirmations combined with Negation)
Further:
The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons (and daughters), that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men. (Confirmation of the affirmations and level of negation.)
As a Baha'i I face the same challenge provided in the statement, but I have to consider that that the differences can be accepted as a product of the era God gave the Message, the Level of negation then becomes a balance between what God gave as guidance, and what we have added as guidance.
I understand why it is stated in such a manner.
Honest question Thomas. "With Faiths that have come after Christianity, such as Islam and Baha'i in what light would the stated affirmation, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions", would a Catholic see what is true and holy coming from?
Could you see it in the light that it was given of God? This is the quandary I see is in the statement.
Regards Tony
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,374
- Reaction score
- 589
- Points
- 108
The descriptions are diverse, but the reality is One. Truth is relative to the observer, orienting itself to accommodate the changing intrinsic and extrinsic perspective of human beings through time and space.
Yes, that's the challenge to us all, everywhere.
In unity and love.
What negation do you see here?
Same question.
Well that's for you as a Baha'i to address.
I think the question is 'could a Catholic' – and the answer is surely yes – the papacies of Francis, Benedict, JPII were all marked by inter-religious dialogue.
I see no quandary ... I'm not sure what your expectation is?
Further reflections on the OP ...
If reality is One, then reason suggests that those epiphanic and/or theophanic encounters that inspire religions and philosophies are all, in reality, experiences of the same thing. It is this that needs be the focus of any discourse towards the unity of religious pluralism.
In such dialogue, each is required to recognises the differences and distinctions within the individual traditions. The aim is not to challenge nor change the other – those differences and distinctions are inevitable and inescapable in a contingent cosmos – and to seek to project one's own ideas and images onto the other is an offence against the other and an offence against the One, who lies at the heart of that particular arising and outpouring.
It needs be understood that in those differences and distinctions, in their scriptures, creeds and cultus, that is transmitted the means by which the tradition accesses the Infinite and Absolute, the Real and the True.
And the same is true of each and every tradition
The idea that one can simply dismiss these differences and distinctions and arrive at a universal means is simply erroneous. The summit remains in view, but the way to it is lost.
A Buddhist, for example, might advance a kind of Advaita nondualism, but if a Buddhist does not believe in a 'self' (atman), then they really cannot genuinely confess tat tvam asi, (that thou art) as Advaita does. The distinction is very real and an essential difference of the tradition.
Similarly, a Christian who confesses the Person of Christ as the locus of creation in God, and God in creation, cannot reasonably expect agreement from a Jew, a Muslim or a Baha’i.
If there can be a unity of traditions, it will be one in which the individual and separate traditions are accepted as whole and in all their parts as a viable means by which the promise of the restoration of relation, and a union with, the One, can be realised.
In the end, one can only fully understand a religion is from the inside. Is by doing it. Religious observance is not merely an intellectual exercise, it's a whole body experience.
Perennialism, for example, is at its best when it claims the space between these worlds, so to speak. The perennialist can speak about those world, and observe the commonalities and differences between them, but a perennialist cannot fully describe the inner content of each, because that is intimately subjective, and not the object of rational discourse.
One can talk about love. One can acknowledge and admire the love shared between others, bt being in love is of a different order entirely.
The confession of a religion is the personal response to the mystery of being.
That a follower of one religion can coexist in unity with a follower of another depreciates neither. That is what unity is.
Unity in this world is what union is in the next.
+++
If reality is One, then reason suggests that those epiphanic and/or theophanic encounters that inspire religions and philosophies are all, in reality, experiences of the same thing. It is this that needs be the focus of any discourse towards the unity of religious pluralism.
In such dialogue, each is required to recognises the differences and distinctions within the individual traditions. The aim is not to challenge nor change the other – those differences and distinctions are inevitable and inescapable in a contingent cosmos – and to seek to project one's own ideas and images onto the other is an offence against the other and an offence against the One, who lies at the heart of that particular arising and outpouring.
It needs be understood that in those differences and distinctions, in their scriptures, creeds and cultus, that is transmitted the means by which the tradition accesses the Infinite and Absolute, the Real and the True.
And the same is true of each and every tradition
The idea that one can simply dismiss these differences and distinctions and arrive at a universal means is simply erroneous. The summit remains in view, but the way to it is lost.
A Buddhist, for example, might advance a kind of Advaita nondualism, but if a Buddhist does not believe in a 'self' (atman), then they really cannot genuinely confess tat tvam asi, (that thou art) as Advaita does. The distinction is very real and an essential difference of the tradition.
Similarly, a Christian who confesses the Person of Christ as the locus of creation in God, and God in creation, cannot reasonably expect agreement from a Jew, a Muslim or a Baha’i.
If there can be a unity of traditions, it will be one in which the individual and separate traditions are accepted as whole and in all their parts as a viable means by which the promise of the restoration of relation, and a union with, the One, can be realised.
In the end, one can only fully understand a religion is from the inside. Is by doing it. Religious observance is not merely an intellectual exercise, it's a whole body experience.
Perennialism, for example, is at its best when it claims the space between these worlds, so to speak. The perennialist can speak about those world, and observe the commonalities and differences between them, but a perennialist cannot fully describe the inner content of each, because that is intimately subjective, and not the object of rational discourse.
One can talk about love. One can acknowledge and admire the love shared between others, bt being in love is of a different order entirely.
The confession of a religion is the personal response to the mystery of being.
That a follower of one religion can coexist in unity with a follower of another depreciates neither. That is what unity is.
Unity in this world is what union is in the next.
+++
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Well, the Pilate did not say that Jesus was a king. He asked a question. Jesus' answer was not correct. He should have answered clearly, yes or no. Obfuscation.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Of course, not. If you pray to Shiva, only Shiva will know, not Vishnu. One have to invoke the God or Goddess that one want to correspond to.
Has God forgiven Satan? These are nice ideas but not applicable to all. Even your God has an eternal hell for some, atheists qualify for that.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I agree to that, but not to your elaboration.
Some see more to it than that.
..but what does that actually mean? praying to 'a god' ?
I think it depends on the intention .. the sincerity behind it.
Some people might be praying to impress others, for example.
No .. you might see it like that .. being in a polytheistic culture..
..but being in a monotheistic culture, I don't.
More to the point, has satan repented? Answer: No.
..and that is what it is all about .. the state of our souls.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Praying to God is basically begging for candies.
Yeah, I am an atheist from a polytheist tradition. My perspective is different from yours.
Satan like humans was a faulty creation of Abrahamic God. God allows Satan to continue the may-hem. Why?
For the same reason that He allows mankind to "continue the mayhem" ..
..but not all of us are guilty .. it's a case of separating the wheat from the chaff.