Discussion in 'Comparative Studies' started by Namaste Jesus, Jun 18, 2014.
which message do you have a duty to deliver?
That of Christ, or Krishna?
Well all religions affirm a baseline moral dimension. Therefore all religions acknowledge that anyone who attains this 'critical minimum', of being a good person towards one's neighbour, will suffice to some degree to attain a 'paradise/heaven' – but no religion claims that moral righteousness alone is the goal of that religion.
The tendency of the world today, as it grows ever more occluded (our Asiatic friends would speak of the Kali-Yuga), is to see 'religion' purely in moral terms, and 'spirituality' purely in terms of personal wellbeing.
The practice of religion for them is a morality wrapped up in 'superstition' or 'ignorance'. Unless its meditation, which is cool. But strip the superstition and ignorance away they say, and viola! you have the spiritual message at the core of the religion. So they strip away, and what you're left with is a moral message which, surprise, surprise, is roughly in line with their contemporary moral values. Whether fundamentalist conservative or fundamentalist liberal, they both do it, and if you step back and look, it becomes quite obvious.
Added to this, the over-arching, often romantic and sentimental idealism of a materialist consumer culture, which necessarily speaks of 'freedom', of 'equality', etc., because it seeks the broadest possible marketplace for its goods, treats 'spirituality' as just another commodity in the marketplace. It's a matter of note that most US Christian denominations started off as commercial enterprises marketing their own message and today 'spiritual advancement' is assumed to function according to 'free-market' principles.
Naturally, they're dealing with people. People are the same everywhere. Once you start talking about what religion says about the Other however, other than people, then the distinctions begin to appear.
No they're not, but the distinction lies in those areas that tend to be overlooked or dismissed. Added to that is a contemporary layer of fluff by those who have no real insight or experience, but a lot to say (and what they have to say invariably reflects their sociopolitical circumstance more than anything else), and there's a real Tower of Babel out there...
I would split it. Of course there are many ways to cut the cake once you start systematising it, but in general I would say:
There are the particular mystical/spiritual/religious paths, which if trod lead to the peak (today obscured by clouds).
There is a generic moral path which leads into the mountains and the many mansions.
There are the subjective/egoic paths which lead nowhere 'real'.
Thomas, I can't tell if you are disagreeing with anything I said or adding to what I said in agreement. I was trying to keep it simple and after reading even I am confused. Maybe it's just I assume most people disagree with me most of the time.
As for the last part, I was referring to righteous paths, obviously there are paths to which there is no possibility of heaven without a Big warp from the creator (whatever anyone's name is for him). Of course IMO Islam is the most direct path, as I would assume you feel Catholicism is. I think that If you follow Catholocism and are a good person, and maintain the 1st commandment (and the others...), then I would expect we will meet in Jannah inshallah (assuming I can achieve it myself). Same would go for anyone. I cannot say with any evidence about Atheists or Polytheists one way or the other that it is possible to achieve paradise.
What evidence have we that anyone achieved 'paradise' ever?
What is a US Christian denomination? Are you referring to the modern day ones? (mormon, JW, new thought) the Evangelical? or all Christianity in the US? (as it appears to me from my discussions here with you that almost all our churches are putting forth an elementary/primary view of G!d and religion)
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
A stand alongside thing, I think.
A Jew, a Christian, a Moslem, a Hindu might have common moral values, and indeed common ideas about God in general, but once you get into specifics? Would a Moslem accept Hindu polytheism? They certainly don't accept what we say about the Trinity, nor do they accept our definition that the Trinity is not Three Gods...
Christianity talks of a union between creature and creator. Buddhism talks of the extinction of the creature. Jews say a soul, Buddhists say not ... there's a number of core issues that the religions disagree on.
But being a good person, I think we all agree on that.
Well I share that view, but there are those who are of the opinion that all you have to do is believe yourself to be right, to be right.
As for the last part, I was referring to righteous paths
I would say 'provisional paradise', but not quite the peak that you and I might have in mind.
One that originates in America, I would have thought. I didn't really go into the idea too much, I thought it was obvious.
meh... I think much of your non american originating religions (in the US) have been corrupted by the literal anthropomorphists...
From an Islamic standpoint, noone but Prophets and Martyrs have achieved Paradise yet. As for evidence, scriptural evidence. Until the day of judgement is all we can hope for.
Yeah... I kind of agree with you that "in one way or another they are interconnected"... We had a World Religion Day and a Zoroastrian and Hindu began comparing notes and found that they had a lot in common. Of course Zoroastrians have been in India for quite awhile.. there's also I believe some Zoroastrian influence in Mahayana Buddhism when you compare the Shraosh and Bodhisatva conceots.. Baha'is believe all the major religions have a common Source.
That's kind of the way it happened for me. I'm a Christian, but after marring into a Hindu family, I started noticing how similar the 2 religions really are. Of course, their are near countless variants of Hinduism with some being further away from Christianity than others.
Well, yes...but that goes back at least to the selling of indulgences by the Pope that infuriated Martin Luther to write his theses and pin them to the church door at Württemberg. Otherwise excellent post!
It is so seldom we find such comprehensive agreement, but I'm right with ya on all of this.
Oh quite ... but let's not overlook that Luther wasn't so incensed when the monies filled the coffers of his bishop. What exercised him the more was that the money was going to Rome.
I believe that was after he made a pilgrimage to Rome, and saw what the Pope was up to and how lavishly and flambouyantly the tithes and indulgences were being squandered. It was after the return from that pilgrimage that the seeds of protest began to germinate in Luther.
and hasn't the nailing to the door turned out to be mythology?
Not so far as I can tell. Luther was a priest and a professor (in the literal as well as the honorable title sense), and he used his scholarship to pinpoint the various things that irked him on paper, and literally nailed it to the church door. This was about the time the printing press came into being, and someone got the bright idea to copy his theses and distribute them...and the rest, as they say, is history.
It's still taught by a teacher I know to be very reserved and critical toward facts. She goes on to show how during the rebellion he sided with the nobles rather than with the farmers.
George Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree either.... it is simply yet another story that keeps the story going.
Separate names with a comma.