Did God send His messangers with more than one religion?!!

[citizenzen]

More of the richness and diversity of non-belief...

Michael Shermer: Why people believe strange things

 

[shawn]

Nice little snippet from TED.

 

[path_of_one]

I'm afraid you are being nit-picky. Think of how wide a scope Christians occupy, how many different sects, rituals and interpretations exist.

Now think about how narrowly you're attempting to define atheism. I find it unfair and myopic. I think you are intentionally ignoring the richness and diversity that exists in non-belief.

Really, that is not my intent. I see four broad categories:

theism: belief in some sort of God
animism: belief in some sort of spirit/soul
atheism: belief there is not a God
agnosticism: I don't know

There is no anti-animism so far as I know. Atheism can include a variety of rich traditions or shallow interpretations, just as theism can.

The two are oppositional to one another, but neither is necessarily shallow or deep. Each depends on the depth of the individual thinker.

ETA: I do think there is a sort of "hard" atheism that extends to believing there is no soul/spirit, no Divine, no nothing beyond the material world. And I do find that sort of atheism rather rare compared to the "soft" variety that is anti-monotheism but otherwise more agnostic.

Anyhoo, just figured I'd tack that on. As I thought about it, perhaps I was being too narrow in my definition by extending it farther to the "hard" atheist position without accommodating the "soft" position.

So that was a good call, CZZ.

 

[path_of_one]

More of the richness and diversity of non-belief...

Michael Shermer: Why people believe strange things

Loved that. LOL

Nothing I would disagree with, either. I'm still a theist, though. I guess because my flavor of theism has not much to do with the Virgin in a grilled cheese (though after hearing it sold for $28K, I'm certainly tempted to try my hand at artistic grilled cheese sandwiches ) or in hearing Satanic lyrics in reverse-played records. LOL

I think perhaps the difference between myself and many people I talk with, from both atheistic and theistic circles is that people tend to want to know what is accurate. In spirituality, I want to know what is transformative. If I am manufacturing my own experience of God, it still seems to help me in many ways, so I just can't see the point in getting rid of it either way.

I've heard the argument from Christians: "You should believe, because if we're right and you're wrong, you'll go to hell!"
I've heard the argument from atheists: "You're wasting all this time in belief, because if we're right, it's pointless."

Since I neither believe in hell, nor do I find my spiritual life pointless (no matter how inaccurate in its assessment of reality it may be)... I find both positions kind of irrelevant. But if they work for somebody, more power to them.

 

[Marsh]

This question is really important. All Jewish, Christians, and Muslim brothers and sisters have to think about that...

If we believe in the same God (I dont know it this is true with others), then the thought of God's sending prophets of different religions is really confusing....

Can we say that religions are started based on the teaching of prophets, rather than the prophets being sent to any one particular religion? I don't know the ins and outs of most religions, but it seems to me that religions begin with the teachings of one or more prophets, and are established as institutions long afterwards.

If this is the case, then the question is not so much does God send prophets to different religions as it is did God send all of the people who are considered prophets today? In which case I would say that the ones sent by God would have a consistent message. Thus, as a Christian, if I hear that a prophet is preaching a message consistent with the one Jesus preached, then I might be inclined to believe that they came from God. Likewise for people of all religions.

But where there is a case that two prophets are preaching contradictory messages, they both can't be sent from God, can they?

 

[path_of_one]

I think an interesting question is how much consistency indicates they are both from God.

You have to allow for some difference stemming from cultural, historical, and linguistic difference.

On the other hand, nearly every religion and major spiritual teacher in the world has taught the same basics- love each other, live in peace, give to the poor, etc.

So it seems like a subjective judgment on the part of each individual to figure out how similar two prophets have to be to indicate both are from God.

 

[Marsh]

I think an interesting question is how much consistency indicates they are both from God.

You have to allow for some difference stemming from cultural, historical, and linguistic difference.

On the other hand, nearly every religion and major spiritual teacher in the world has taught the same basics- love each other, live in peace, give to the poor, etc.

So it seems like a subjective judgment on the part of each individual to figure out how similar two prophets have to be to indicate both are from God.

It's not as subjective as you might think. For example, Jesus taught that we should love one another, while Buddha taught that desire (and subsequently love) is suffering. Jesus taught that we can be born again once, while Buddha taught that we will be born again indefinitely until we reach Nirvana. Jesus taught that people go to Heaven because of God's forgiveness, while Buddha taught that people go to Nirvana because of their own enlightenment.

Overall, the messages don't really seem consistent to me. The question as to which one is really from God.... that's entirely up to each one of us to figure out.

 

[citizenzen]

It's not as subjective as you might think. For example, Jesus taught that we should love one another, while Buddha taught that desire (and subsequently love) is suffering.

The Buddha never taught that love is suffering.

I'd take with a great grain of salt any interpretation of a religion by somebody who doesn't actually practice it.

 

[path_of_one]

It's not as subjective as you might think. For example, Jesus taught that we should love one another, while Buddha taught that desire (and subsequently love) is suffering.

That is not what the Buddha taught. Attachment leads to suffering. The Buddha teaches unconditional love- the kind that Jesus taught (agape)- love without attachment to outcome. Desire is an entirely different thing than love. Additionally, some Buddhist teachers would equate desire with craving as a better translation. Which is entirely aligned with Jesus' teaching, I think. You know, the whole thing about not being too tied to the things of this world.

Jesus taught that we can be born again once, while Buddha taught that we will be born again indefinitely until we reach Nirvana.

Jesus was talking about spiritual rebirth. The Buddha was talking about literal birth- that is, incarnation. But there are certainly differences in the concept of heaven/hell and one lifetime as opposed to reincarnation and nirvana. At the same time, both Judaism and early Christianity had a diversity of thought on the afterlife. It is only later that you find an increasing amount of doctrinal agreement in Christianity, in part because of centralization of authority.

Jesus taught that people go to Heaven because of God's forgiveness, while Buddha taught that people go to Nirvana because of their own enlightenment.

We go to heaven, according to Christ's teachings, through the grace of God. However, most Christians believed that in order to be forgiven under this grace, there must be a "second birth" that involves the person realizing God's grace. Is this not a form of enlightenment and change in perspective?

Furthermore, the concept of both nirvana and enlightenment is much more complex than this would suggest. Nirvana isn't a place one goes to but more like a state of being that develops out of enlightenment.

For Christians that posit that heaven is an actual place, nirvana is nothing like that. For Christians that posit that heaven is a state of being in the presence of God, it begins to look a lot like nirvana in terms of how it works.

In Christianity, if heaven is a state of being in the presence of God then...
realization of Christ and being "born again" --> heaven

In Buddhism, nirvana is a state of being. So...
enlightenment --> nirvana

Overall, the messages don't really seem consistent to me. The question as to which one is really from God.... that's entirely up to each one of us to figure out.

Agreed- up to the individual. But there are far more similarities in experience and practice, especially when one studies the diversity within both Buddhism and Christianity for a while, then there may at first appear. I thought Thich Nhat Hanh's "Living Buddha, Living Christ" was a fairly good read on the matter, though it misses many of the subtle differences and diversities that a more thorough study of both provides.

Part of the issue is how much each of these spiritual teachers' works were changed, misinterpreted, mistranslated, and so forth over the years by others and how much would have been shaped by the very different dominant cultural-religious traditions at the time- Judaism on the one hand and Hinduism on the other.

Yet at the end of the day, many Buddhists "bear good fruit" and exhibit the "fruits of the spirit," so what then to make of the Buddha's teachings as a valid path to God?

 

[Amica]

Peace/Salaam/Shalom--

I think that in the Holy Qur'an it is mentioned that all of the prophets pbut (125,000 of them in total) have preached the same faith: submission and belief to One and Only God Almighty. In the Holy Qur'an, this submission is called Islaam. Satanic influence has caused many to change the understanding of the Message over time and some of us have kept part of its truths with us throughout the ages. In the Holy Qur'an it is mentioned that only true believers will not fall away from the True path and satan will be unable to pursuade them. Some of us are weak or willingly rebel against God's Message, and therefore confusion. God Almighty says that there is no compulsion in faith in Him and therefore He, I feel and believe, does not guide/ make everyone become a believer unless they are open to the possibility of learning/grasping/considering His Message. That is why God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an that certain people refuse to try to understand/to consider the Truth presented to them and because of such attitude He is leaving them to continue on the wrong path. He will not force them into belief.

 

[DrDeb]

I agree with path of one's interpretation of universal truths within those spiritual Teachings.

Peace/Salaam/Shalom -- I think that in the Holy Qur'an it is mentioned that all of the prophets pbut (125,000 of them in total) have preached the same faith: submission and belief to One and Only God Almighty.

I agree with Amica that the concept of surrending or submitting to the Divine Will/Tao/natural flow of the universe rather than following a materialistic, worldly path is a core element of the spiritual Teachings. As an aside, I think this is the exact opposite of the current "Law of Attraction" idea where people try to manifest material things like a car or $5000 through their own individual will rather than submitting to the Divine Will. I think that aspect of the Law of Attraction is antithetical to what the spiritual Teachings advise us to do:
Miami Interfaith Spirituality Examiner: Weekly ACIM workbook lesson: letting go rather than attracting our desires

 

[Amica]

Peace/Salaam--

Yes, DrDeb. The LOA is such a phony. In the beginning, I thought ok this concept has basis in the monotheistic religions, as the author of The Secret would have us believe. After studying it a little bit, I realized that LOA is not a 'secret coveted throughout the ages' and while the basics of it apply to the definition of belief itself, the preaching of its implementation is wrong.
Every Jew, Christian, Muslim or any believer in God Almighty knows that the Message was simply: believe in God, pray to him only and you will see your rewards. Relying on Him is the key here because God Almighty commands everything. Sometimes, His answer is 'no' too.
What the preaches of the LOA want us to believe is that we 'can command' God Almighty to do our bidding. But true monotheism teaches us that is not true.
Another of the satanic traps... thank God I saw through it. Almost fell for it though May Allah SWT forgive me! I hope...

 

[wil]

Namaste Amica and Deb,

Have either of you read the Law of Attraction or just the soundbites?

I don't see the law as so very different than other thought.

What the preaches of the LOA want us to believe is that we 'can command' God Almighty to do our bidding

this is icongruent with my understanding.

The law states for you to attract something your vibration must be in line with the vibration of that which you wish to attract.

I don't see that as so different from other thought. ie you wish good in your life you must be good...you want love in your life you must be love...etc.

btw, I over manifested baby grand pianos...

 

[shawn]

The LOA movement is a creature which has sprung from the reworking of previous authors such as Napolean Hill (for one).
The basic premises of the LOA are sound and practical rules of reality and are a great study in human psychology.
We are co-creators in reality.

But the movement around "the secret" is not much different than the other "get rich quick" and snakeoil types of scams.

 

[Marsh]

That is not what the Buddha taught. Attachment leads to suffering. The Buddha teaches unconditional love- the kind that Jesus taught (agape)- love without attachment to outcome. Desire is an entirely different thing than love. Additionally, some Buddhist teachers would equate desire with craving as a better translation. Which is entirely aligned with Jesus' teaching, I think. You know, the whole thing about not being too tied to the things of this world.



Jesus was talking about spiritual rebirth. The Buddha was talking about literal birth- that is, incarnation. But there are certainly differences in the concept of heaven/hell and one lifetime as opposed to reincarnation and nirvana. At the same time, both Judaism and early Christianity had a diversity of thought on the afterlife. It is only later that you find an increasing amount of doctrinal agreement in Christianity, in part because of centralization of authority.



We go to heaven, according to Christ's teachings, through the grace of God. However, most Christians believed that in order to be forgiven under this grace, there must be a "second birth" that involves the person realizing God's grace. Is this not a form of enlightenment and change in perspective?

Furthermore, the concept of both nirvana and enlightenment is much more complex than this would suggest. Nirvana isn't a place one goes to but more like a state of being that develops out of enlightenment.

For Christians that posit that heaven is an actual place, nirvana is nothing like that. For Christians that posit that heaven is a state of being in the presence of God, it begins to look a lot like nirvana in terms of how it works.

In Christianity, if heaven is a state of being in the presence of God then...
realization of Christ and being "born again" --> heaven

In Buddhism, nirvana is a state of being. So...
enlightenment --> nirvana



Agreed- up to the individual. But there are far more similarities in experience and practice, especially when one studies the diversity within both Buddhism and Christianity for a while, then there may at first appear. I thought Thich Nhat Hanh's "Living Buddha, Living Christ" was a fairly good read on the matter, though it misses many of the subtle differences and diversities that a more thorough study of both provides.

Part of the issue is how much each of these spiritual teachers' works were changed, misinterpreted, mistranslated, and so forth over the years by others and how much would have been shaped by the very different dominant cultural-religious traditions at the time- Judaism on the one hand and Hinduism on the other.

Yet at the end of the day, many Buddhists "bear good fruit" and exhibit the "fruits of the spirit," so what then to make of the Buddha's teachings as a valid path to God?

Sorry fellas, but my knowledge of Buddhism is limited to what I learned about it in school. It's sort of a catch 21: on the one hand, the proposition requires a comparison of religion, and on the other hand one's comparison is not valid if you don't actually practice both religions.

 

[path_of_one]

Sorry fellas, but my knowledge of Buddhism is limited to what I learned about it in school. It's sort of a catch 21: on the one hand, the proposition requires a comparison of religion, and on the other hand one's comparison is not valid if you don't actually practice both religions.

You don't really have to practice both, I think. I would say your assessment of Buddhism was not inaccurate because you aren't Buddhist, but because your studies of Buddhism were (perhaps) not thorough enough to really understand it. My experience, having both studied Buddhism and having taught the basics in religious studies, is that Western folks in general and especially Christians struggle with the concepts in Buddhism, which are quite complex and operating out of an entirely different cultural and religious heritage.

To make a comparison, the mistakes you're making about Buddhist concepts of suffering, enlightenment and nirvana would be similar to someone telling you that you are polytheist because you believe in three Gods (Christ, Father, Spirit). They wouldn't have to become Christian to understand their inaccuracy, but they would need to study Christianity more in order to understand the complexity of the concept of Trinity.

 

[path_of_one]

The LOA movement is a creature which has sprung from the reworking of previous authors such as Napolean Hill (for one).
The basic premises of the LOA are sound and practical rules of reality and are a great study in human psychology.
We are co-creators in reality.

I also see it this way. I don't think the LOA is a spiritual law, but rather an energetic/material one. Generally, we find what we seek and expect to find. If we are out to make money, we are driven to do so, and more likely to make some. If we are out there to help others, we are driven to do so, and more likely to help.

It's basic. And it's nothing new. It undergirds many magical systems and basic common sense.

But the movement around "the secret" is not much different than the other "get rich quick" and snakeoil types of scams.

I agree. When I saw "The Secret" my first thoughts were: (1) this is not a secret. (2) What a bunch of hype. and (3) If this were really a spiritual endeavor and not someone's get-rich-quick scheme, there would be a lot of attention on how to use the LOA to promote peace, joy, etc. and a lot less attention on how to obtain luxury goods.

It was just marketing the LOA to the American consumerist mindset. And this is, in my opinion, the opposite of submission to the Divine, in which "self" is swallowed up by the Divine and so "my" desires and cravings and plans are no longer relevant.

I think the LOA is, itself, neutral. It is mechanistic. It's like electricity or atomic power. It's capacity for harm or good comes from the intentions of the individual.

 

[DrDeb]

I also see it this way. I don't think the LOA is a spiritual law, but rather an energetic/material one. Generally, we find what we seek and expect to find. If we are out to make money, we are driven to do so, and more likely to make some. If we are out there to help others, we are driven to do so, and more likely to help.

From this perspective, it sounds like we're basically just talking about co-creating our reality through the power of our conscious choice of attitude. I don't know if that's a vibration per se, but basically the concept that life is 10% what happens to us and 90% attitude. I see this as completely within our power to control, and I agree that this aspect of the "Law of Attraction" is nothing new and pretty straightforward from a psychological perspective. Seth was talking about co-creating our reality back in the 1970s.

I think the whole thing starts spinning out of control when we start trying to "attract" things that are outside of our control. There's a big difference, I think, between putting our energy into studying for school, putting in extra hours at work, or working on a relationship -- and mentally trying to manifest something in the physical world that is completely out of our control, like "attracting" a particular dollar amount out of nowhere. That's where I see a pretty big difference between fairly universal themes of submission to the Divine Will and striving to essentially use magic to create something through our own individual will. (No offense to anyone who practices magic "for the good of all," which to me is still submitting to the Divine.)

Those are my thoughts at the end of a long week, anyway!

 

[citizenzen]

I don't know if that's a vibration per se, but basically the concept that life is 10% what happens to us and 90% attitude.

I think life is 100% of what happens to us and 100% attitude.

 

[DrDeb]

Peace/Salaam-- Every Jew, Christian, Muslim or any believer in God Almighty knows that the Message was simple: believe in God, pray to him only and you will see your rewards. Relying on Him is the key here because God Almighty commands everything. Sometimes, His answer is 'no' too. What the preachers of the LOA want us to believe is that we 'can command' God Almighty to do our bidding. But true monotheism teaches us that is not true.

Yes, this is my understanding as well! I seem to be surrounded by people trying to manifest their personal desires simply through the power of the mind, and I see ads everywhere telling us that we can have whatever we want through the Law of Attraction. To me, it doesn't seem consistent with the spiritual Teachings I've studied, but I fully respect everyone who wants to try it!