One thing that has really struck me recently in all of the recent discussions on religion is that my point of view on the topic seems to be drastically different than most. Like I’ve stated in the past, I do not see religion through the eyes of mine-is-right-and-yours-is-wrong. In fact I see that point of view as extremely harmful. Sadly it is also extremely common throughout the world.
I don’t see religion in these terms because I do not believe that any one religion is better than any other. They all have their pluses and their minuses (some more so than others). It is my opinion that all religions hold the potential path to salvation and enlightenment. They do so by offering a guide for moral and ethical behavior and by acting as a conduit to reach the divine. But it is through our actions and not the name that we assign to God that will determine our fate after death.
I understand that this is not a concept that is easy for many to understand (not that I’m smarter than anyone else mind you, because lord knows that I’m not). Many hold stead fast to specific traditions, and while there isn’t anything wrong with that, it’s this iron grip that clouds their view of the wonder of other religions. Each person must find their own path, but whatever path that is chosen is not better, truer, or more valid than any other.
We really must shed this us vs. them mentality because it does no one any good. And when religion employs said mentality it stops working for the spirit and salvation of its followers and starts working for the power of its organization. That is a perversion of the divine.
Note – Has anyone noticed that the religions that are most guilty of the us vs. them, I’m-right-and-you’re-wrong mentality are the monotheistic ones. Just look at Islam as an example. There are Muslims who commit horrible atrocities in the name of God because they believe that their religion must rule the world. How insane is that? Islam isn’t the only monotheistic religion guilty of said mentality, but they are by far the most extreme about it.
19 comments:
Now dave I'm not being disrespectful here but seriously...
Your solution for dealing religions that do want to debate whether they are right and others are wrong is what?
Should we simply say to Islam... what the heck, maybe you're right and we should all convert to Islam or just become Dhimmi's or what?
Do we dare challenge what we believe to be wrong and argue... debate for what we believe to be right?
Or should we all say... I have no clue, I have no idea, good luck, you're on your own, I could be wrong so I won't risk being right?
It seems like you kinda want to have it both ways... you danced around the phrasing earlier if you recall.
You said you don't think any religion has "got it right"... but you also said that doesn't mean you think they're wrong either... Now you say it's not a "I'm right and "you're wrong" debate.... yet you're entire argument is based on you being right about others being wrong.
If the object was to confuse... mission accomplished.
I kinda agree with some of your points. I think God can certaily deal with different tribes in different ways like He did at the Tower of Babel when He created all the languages. I do think that there are absolutes like light and darkness and up and down and One Creator of us all that tis. I believe the Hebrew Christian bible is totally inspired and allows for other ways of worship by other faiths.
Red --
Are you trying to be obtuse, or do I just suck that much at trying to express my point? As much as I’m sure to regret it later, I’ll do my best to answer your questions. :-P
Q: “Your solution for dealing religions that do want to debate whether they are right and others are wrong is what?”
A: I have to admit, I’m not really sure what you are trying to ask here Red.
Q: “Should we simply say to Islam... what the heck, maybe you're right and we should all convert to Islam or just become Dhimmi's or what?”
A: Where did you get that idea?
Q: “Do we dare challenge what we believe to be wrong and argue... debate for what we believe to be right?”
A: Again, I’m not sure I understand the point of this question or what it has to do with my post. One can and should do soul searching and find the religion that works best for him/her and a great way to do that is through discussion with members of other faiths.
Q: “Or should we all say... I have no clue, I have no idea, good luck, you're on your own, I could be wrong so I won't risk being right?”
A: Do what? I must be the obtuse one this morning because I’m really not sure at all where you are coming from or where you are trying to take us with these questions. Would you mind clarifying?
Red said: “You said you don't think any religion has "got it right"... but you also said that doesn't mean you think they're wrong either... Now you say it's not a "I'm right and "you're wrong" debate.... yet you're entire argument is based on you being right about others being wrong.”
No, I never said that I was right; in fact I admitted that I could be wrong. What I did say was that these were my opinions based on everything that I have seen, heard, and read.
The discussion of religion should be one of listening with open hearts and minds to all of the teachings of the various faiths, prophets, and sacred texts and learning from said teachings. To me this isn’t a debate; it’s a discussion and a dialogue. A debate implies that someone is right and someone else is wrong. I prefer to come to the table to learn from everyone and to share what I know. I should have made that clearer in my original post.
Jim –
Thank you. You hold a very enlightened opinion and one that is far more open minded than most people would give you credit for. Keep it up!
People of all religius should study the history found in the chronicles of the Tower of Babel.
When God gave the various tribes each a new language...it came with religioun overtones woven in. For instance the Amrerindains all said the Great Spirit has aloted them their home lands. I believe that points back to the dispersion of Babel. If we take the record of the Bible as fact then the dispersion of the tribes from Babel occur ed before the Europe/Africa split from North and South America.
The common objection for dating pre modern history can be taken with a grain of skepticism. Science will change their lemming like collective mind again for the thousandth time soon.
"No, I never said that I was right; in fact I admitted that I could be wrong. What I did say was that these were my opinions based on everything that I have seen, heard, and read."
So your opinions and arguments are based on you being wrong or right dave?
You are condemning Christians for believing they are right and preaching that belief to others as fact.
I asked you those questions because you criticize Christians for preaching the message and for believing they are right and others are wrong... just as others believe they are right and Christians are wrong.
You said,
"The discussion of religion should be one of listening with open hearts and minds to all of the teachings of the various faiths, prophets, and sacred texts and learning from said teachings. To me this isn’t a debate; it’s a discussion and a dialogue. A debate implies that someone is right and someone else is wrong. I prefer to come to the table to learn from everyone and to share what I know."
What a bunch of baloney.
The discussion of religion can NEVER be what you describe above unless there were only ONE religion. There should be debate about who is right and who is wrong. I believe we (humans) are the battle ground between right and wrong, so to stifle that debate is to deny the very reason for our measly existence.
I can listen...and do so, but I can also form an opinion based on what I hear.
You are suggesting we should not come to a conclusion (right or wrong) but stay in that gray zone. This goes against the way the human brain works.
I think I am going to have to side with Red on this one. I honestly don't think that religion is a gray matter. It is pretty black and white in my opinion.
However, read my latest post on religion and you can get a better idea of why and how I think the way I do.
I'm shocked Otter... btw, have I told you lately how brilliant your wife is?
Red –
I think at this point it is safe to say that this “discussion” is pointless. You are trying to have a debate and I am trying to have a conversation. You are trying to tell me that I am wrong and I am saying that we are both right. This isn’t about black or white or grey. It’s about learning and growing. I’m sorry that you think my opinion is “baloney” but that is the way I see it.
Steve –
I completely respect your opinion, but more than that I respect the way that you handle yourself in this discussions.
Jim --
I will have to do some more research on the Tower of Babel. Thanks for the idea.
If by "discussion" you mean that you get to tell me what you think but I don't get to tell you what I think.... then I see what you mean about not wanting to debate.
That kinda sums up liberals objection to talk radio to.
True, but in all fairness "Oklahoma Lefty" is not your typical garden variety liberal... I would say more of a "liberal-tarian", is that fair dave?
Red said: “If by "discussion" you mean that you get to tell me what you think but I don't get to tell you what I think.... then I see what you mean about not wanting to debate.”
If that is what you’ve taken away from this exchange, then I really have wasted my time.
Red said: “True, but in all fairness "Oklahoma Lefty" is not your typical garden variety liberal... I would say more of a "liberal-tarian", is that fair dave?”
I think of myself as a liberal libertarian, so yes that is a pretty fair description.
This is one thing that amazes me about you Red. You can be a complete jerk in one breath and then say something really nice in the next. It’s very confusing. lol
You know I love ya dave... just trying to nail this down.
"I am saying that we are both right."
Okay, so I'm right that Jesus is in fact the Son of the One true God and the only path to Him and that Christians have an obligation to share that message?
And... you're right that something other than this true?
We all love Dave.
I’m saying that none of us can completely understand the true nature of God and all we have to go on are texts that were written by other humans. Because of that, we both can be right based on “a certain point of view” (to quote a wise Jedi).
I distrust organized religion specifically because it is a human invention. No matter how sacred we hold any text, the simple fact remains that they were all written by people and not by God. Because of that we must understand the environment from which the texts were spawned and how they have been used by people to promote agendas and power grabs. Again that is my cynical half. My philosophical half sees the sacred texts as pieces to a huge puzzle and by putting them together we can see the big picture.
Thanks Jim.
The Pastor is a creation of the most times prideful self serving early catholic clergy copied by the protestants and is not in Bible. Earning ones own living does not exclude church leaders.
Christians stole tithing from the rules of Judaism.
In Israel the ten percent tithe went to the general fund for national maintenance and ten percent of that went to the Temple...by my rending if one copied Israel the church would deserve 1 % and the state 9%.
My Bible says to buy the gospel and sell it not. There will be a lot of embarrassed preachers on judgement day.
The Bible is clear that senior family members are the authority on things spiritual.
It is an eternally dangerous thing for a human to speak in God's place. That is what Lucifer did! The Creator has given us all we need for our enlightenment and worship templates in the Holy Writ.
Post a Comment