feelings of each religion

how does everyone feel the same thing? worshiping different things? all in our heads????!

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

We are all worshipping the same thing, but calling it different names.

 

Maybe that is why nobody ever responds anymore ?

 

I have no idea what he is trying to say. Is he proposing a sort of Baha'i approach towards religion?

 

Jim Jones had his people commit mass suicide .

Aztecs believed in human sacrifice.

the toyko subway cult used to microwave people and killed loads of people with nerve agent .

you have all sorts of belief so i dont think you can say they all worship the same thing, or they all feel the same.

lots of religions are pretty mild, some have people willing to kill you and themselves, some religions have lots of hate and are very simular to the nazi party .


I think this sort of wooley thinking that everones the same, all religions are the same at their core, is whats getting us into lots of trouble

 

Funny... seems to me that all the trouble was when one sect fights (often literally) another sect over minute differences in their dogma. Like the Muslims and the Jews: they're basically the same religion, but one likes Ishmael and the other likes Isaac. I know there's other issues, but that's where it stems from, right? Who has a right to inherit that land, the country Isaac gave rise to, or the one Ishmael gave rise to (Jews and Arabs, respectively)? Or the fighting in Ireland, Protestant against Catholic. Even moreso the same religion, only difference is tradition and authority (though, in the end, they both recognize all authority begins and ends in God). It's fucking retarded.

So, you really think that a unified approach is worse than this divisive approach we've been literally been battling it out under? Way I see it, if the Muslim can say "hey, that Jew over there is just like me, a human being with all the value and importance that entails. He is a creation of God, as am I. He is my brother," all the better for us all. I don't seen how the Muslim thinking, "That Jew is an infidel who soils the Holy Lands, for he does not adhere to my holy book and the Prophet Muhammed. For that, he must die," is good or better than this "wolly" idea that we are all alike.

 

I dont see you are going to get muslims to think of everyone as their brother ,they wouldnt take salman rushdie or ayaan hirsi ali as their brother .

all that I think has happened is you have the seeds of a really massive series of civil wars when people wake up to the fact that they want different things in the same country .

if you have a community that want lets say authors like salman rushdie killed and another community that doesnt believe in killing authors ,like we have in the uk now .
your going to get friction .

people like cat stevens are just taking their time until they have the numbers to gradually get the society they want , and at some point over some issue your going to get violence over that.

the most multicultural area of europe was the former yugoslavia and what happened there I see as very likely to happen in europe .

its a pity and my hope is that Im wrong or if Im not wrong that it will just be secterian not racial .

so generally I think if you want peace you should have countrys without to many conflicting cultures .

 

its a bit of a complicated subject , but the road to hell is paved with good intentions Im sure multiculturalists had good intentions but I dont think the results are going to turn out well .

I dont think islam is the same as judism religions are different

 

It never ceases to amaze me that, as a Christian, I find myself agreeing with agnostic (atheist?) Johny2mad almost more than anyone else who posts.

I see a lot of truth in this suggestion that the 'everyones the same' faith might be the very one causing the most trouble.
I realise that so many people think synthesis and compromise are the way to erase those nasty sharp borders and that somehow we will all just 'be friends' but it doesnt work that way.

For starters, you must do massive damage to each and all religions to say that in the first place.
The Koran must be 'partly false'
The OT must be 'partly wrong'
The NT is partly wrong.
Buddha is partly flawed......

See, you dont realise you are saying that when you contend that 'All Religions are basically the same' but yes - you really are implying that.

One thing I can tell you for sure - Many many Muslim Clerics will just LOVE to see that 'We are all the same' thinking.
Believe me - they have NO INTENTION of compromising a single verse of their Koran but they would THANK you if you compromised your belief system and conceded to half of theirs as valid.

Then later, all the world will be under the House of Islam.

But honestly, No, not all religions are 'the same at their core' and I think Yugoslavia has already been through this.
But hey.. dont bother gaining any insight from them and lets just keep on trying again and again?

 

yes and for people who don't understand what I was meaning... a christian will say "oh yes i feel god im so at peace with him he's so true in my life.. " but wait! a muslim says "yes allah is with me he is so true" and w/e else
my hxc christian friend says, "oh that's satan lying to him, but satan isn't lying to me"

 

everyone who is arguing about the "core"

the core is, the idea of.. worshiping/beleiving something or someone, to gain something wheters it's (self peace, heavan, paradise etc)

is that the core?

 

Not flawed... perhaps just limited in scope. The Quran was, after all, not given or dictated to the world all at once. It came to one person, Muhammed. Same with the Bible or Torah. They came to only the Jews in Israel, not the whole world. Why one thinks that their view has to apply to everyone is beyond me. I'm not saying that we all should find some middle ground that is part Christianity, part Islam, and part Buddhism. We can all do our own thing, worship as we please. But I think it'd do us all a lot of good to stop trying to force our ideas on others. Even purely as a Christian, Erasmus, surely you must believe that deep down we're all the same. The whole bit about souls and children of God and all that jazz. I'm pretty sure all religions share that notion, where even those not of their sect are still regarded as humans with a soul, or perhaps not with a soul, but still no different from themselves BUT IN MATTERS OF SPECIFIC BELIEFS.

This idea has worked, here in America (and across much of the West, nowadays). Even in Yugoslavia, Christians and Muslims used to get along very well, until the war came with it's polarizing views. I remember watching a documentary about it, friendships torn apart and all that. Before that, one's belief wasn't such a huge issue.

One can certainly argue (quite well) that at their core all the religions ARE the same. The tenents, rules, and rituals are of course quite varied, but the basic core aspects (best observed by looking at the mystics) are indeed shared. The "perennial philosophy" so to speak, to steal Huxley's term. At the very least, we all have far more in common than we have different.

 

how can you say religions arent the same at teh core? all they are are ways of making our brains work more efficiently. if one has no religion, they must descover everything themselves and asses their own beliefs. if you put a religion in a brain, they automatically have answers for almost everything that theyre actually going to ask about life. it doesnt matter if the religion is real or not, it simply makes the brain work better when it doesnt have to think about certain things. only one religion is right, but almost all major civilisations and mass-efforts have been made in the name of religion because religion is like an operating system, theyre often corrupt, have sections stolen from eachother, do the same basic thing, and try their hardest to make sure everyone is running on the same system, so that when networked, the only difference in the two computers are the data they hold and the hardware they run on. religions can be seen like software: they are a means by which data can be assessed, compared, and manipulated at maximum efficiency. while every computer is different, when windows makes a sequel, everyone using windows must patch up. otherwise, theyre left incompatible. thus once in a religion, you cant simply have your own unique ideas or else youll be left alone and confused.

ok im gonna stop this analogy but the idea is there anyway, religions are a result of human consciousness because the most efficient brain working in terms of survival, is one which doesnt have to think about all those philosophical nonresultants on life, like what happens after you die... this is what religions are. the most efficient way for a society to function is if they all are the same. thus religions are held by whole communities, and in multicultural societies, unless people are forced to life side by side, communities will segregate through religions.

the reason almost all religions deal witht he same social/ethical/moral issues are because, neurologically, humans have 'free wont', and not 'free will', for impulses are not conscious, only the ability to prevent an impulse is conscious. the most efficient society is one whereby detrimental impulses are prevented. and what do almost all religions deal with? the things youre not allowed to do. and thats sorta what ethics is.

violence doesnt help (unless its against the enemy)
stealing doesnt help (unless you believe it is yours in the first place)
having radical ideas dont help (unless everyone does it)
sex for pleasure doesnt help(unless theyre 40 years younger than yourself)

etc etc

 

all beliefs have two aspects, a social aspect and a spiritual aspect. the truely spiritual aspect is indeed the same. they do not "worship different things" but only call things by different names and look at them in different ways. the social aspect addressess each to the time and place in which they were revealed. it is for that reason that it is in this social aspect that they appear to differ and even conflict, but the inner essence of all belief is one and the same.

it is also that social aspect that engenders, or at least facilitates, fanatacism, which is the true antithises of their spiritual heart. this, it is my understanding, is what Baha'u'llah was refering to when he said "when two people argue about religeon, they are BOTH wrong!"

take away the parts of all religeons that seem to conflict with each other and you are left with their true heart. these appearent conflicts are distortions, missunderstandings, or downright herretical additions, never intended by any belief's revealers.

=^^=
.../\...