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

[citizenzen]

I did not say a person is a person, I said God is a person (which is why I am a theist) and God is More than a person.

Look, we could go around like this forever if you want.

You seem to want to reduce the meaning of a field, yet expand the meaning of a person.

If I try expand the meaning of a field you don't accept it. And all I was doing was using your own argument in an attempt to show you how circular your logic is.

But you don't see that... or at least want to admit it.

See, you are not a theist. That means something to you. It means you don't want your understanding of God to be mixed up with the understanding of someone who thinks God has the quality of Personhood.

I am not a theist because the conventional wisdom of what God is is based on mythology so absurd as to be meaningless to me.

And yet I have seen God, felt God, been moved and inspired by God. Buddhism is the avenue that I've found to be the most useful means to this connection. And the fact that I choose to describe God in a slightly different way does not change the fact that I do indeed have a relationship with It.

I'm trying to find ways to connect my experience with yours. I'm trying to identify points of similarity between our experiences, to bring us together despite our different perspectives.

What are you trying to do here?

 

[lunamoth]

Look, we could go around like this forever if you want.

You seem to want to reduce the meaning of a field, yet expand the meaning of a person.

If I try expand the meaning of a field you don't accept it. And all I was doing was using your own argument in an attempt to show you how circular your logic is.

But you don't see that... or at least want to admit it.




I am not a theist because the conventional wisdom of what God is is based on mythology so absurd as to be meaningless to me.

And yet I have seen God, felt God, been moved and inspired by God. Buddhism is the avenue that I've found to be the most useful means to this connection. And the fact that I choose to describe God in a slightly different way does not change the fact that I do indeed have a relationship with It.

I'm trying to find ways to connect my experience with yours. I'm trying to identify points of similarity between our experiences, to bring us together despite our different perspectives.

What are you trying to do here?

Well, I'm certainly not trying to argue with you. Like Marsh I was just pointing out that there are meaningful differences between the way we believe, but not that it means I am trying to gain a monopoly on it or anything.

And, like you I see many similarities between what I believe and what can be found in other religions and other individual spiritualities.


I like Buddhism. I find things I like and can relate to in most all religions.

PS. All reasoning is ultimately circular.

 

[lunamoth]

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....


The Jews dont believe in the prophet Jesus peace be upon him as a prophet, but I dont know if they believe he was sent from the same God they believe in. If believe, why then the need of a new religion?!

The Christians believe in Moses peace be upon him. They believe in his prophethood, and he was sent by the same God they believe in. Yet, the question remains: Why did God send Jesus peace be upon him with a new religion and not the same as that of Moses peace be upon him?!

Muslims think that Judaism and Christianity are religions sent by the same God they believe in. The quetion is the same: why the sending of three different religions by the same God??

I'm not sure that the point of Christ's coming was to start a new religion exactly. His teachings were quite in line with the Hillel school of rabbinic teaching at the time, but His mission was reconciliation and redemption. God with us. Christians don't see Christ mainly as prophet and teacher or the bringer of a Book, but as God and redeemer.

Baha'is certainly believe that God has periodically sent messengers and that each true prophet founded a true religion of God. They would say that what we see as differences between the religions are due to two things: 1) correction of a teaching that had become corrupted or 2) a teaching that updates because humans have changed since the coming of the previous prophet.

I think this is much like Islam, except that Baha'is will go further and include Buddhism and Hinduism in the same scheme, that Buddha and Krishna were Manifestations of God, a station in between humans and God.

 

[citizenzen]

And, like you I see many similarities between what I believe and what can be found in other religions and other individual spiritualities.

Well thank you for arriving with me to this beautiful spot.

It was quite the scenic route with a lot of twists and turns, but at least nobody got carsick.

I'd just cleaned the interior.

 

[lunamoth]

Well thank you for arriving with me to this beautiful spot.

It was quite the scenic route with a lot of twists and turns, but at least nobody got carsick.

I'd just cleaned the interior.

No need to arrive because we were already there...which I thought we had already discovered?


Anyhoo...I quite like Thomas Merton and he quite liked Buddhism. I've known a few Episcopal priests personally who include aspects of Buddhism into their walk with God, and I read recently in the news about an Episcopal Priest who is also an ordained Buddhist monk. :shrug:

I like the 8 noble truths of Buddhism and I also am strongly attracted to the Way (Tao). I just don't feel a need to identfiy as a syncretic follower of these paths. I find their thread in the path I'm on with Christ.

 

[path_of_one]

I guess I can see both sides. If I look for similarities, I find plenty and that is why I think all religions are the human attempt to touch God, the Divine, the Ultimate, whatever you want to call It. Because they are human attempts, and *attempt* is the key word, they don't all express exactly the same thing and all are likely to have some holes. But fortunately, I believe they are holes grace can fill.

If I look for differences, I find plenty of those too, which partly what makes religion fascinating and beautiful. Just as CZ's concept of God is not the mainline Christian one (the three persons, one essence idea), another parallel is that I am not too sure that Christ adequately taught the Four Noble Truths. It's something I haven't really thought much about. I need to file that away as a thought experiment for later.

In my own life, I find I am quite syncretic. I find value in all religions. However, most of my ideas and more importantly, my practices and experiences, align with Buddhism, Christianity (well, some flavors anyway), and Druidry (or more broadly, earth-based animism).

I tend to find that each provides a different aspect of guidance in reaching the human potential, each provides a different gateway to experiencing the Mystery I call God, and each has furthered particular attributes in me.

I started in Christianity, so my "other shore" that I was rowing toward was becoming more like Christ. Buddhism gave me a toolkit that was extremely useful in rowing toward that shore and for which I'm forever grateful, because perhaps I was a dunce, but I really needed more "how to" than I got out of Christianity. Druidry gave me a way to understand my relationship with the earth and to find joy in each day I have this body. It brought fun and playfulness into religion, which I find refreshing.

So, I dunno. I find value in them all. I find threads that weave them together. But I also find distinctiveness in each, which makes for an interesting journey.

 

[Marsh]

Well, I think a person is more complex than a field.

I agree, because I'm coming at it from the same angle as you are, Luna. When I think of person, I think of a living, breathing, thinking entity. When I think of field, I think of a passive space that is not alive, and does not think or act, but just exists.

To the Buddhist, a field is much more (and, if I may venture to say, a person may be much less). Thus, when we try to discuss religion in a comparative way, it's like we are doing so in different languages, because the words we use carry differing connotations depending on what your beliefs are. That's why, as Paul said, the cross is nonsense to non-Christians because it doesn't carry the same significance to them as it does to us. In the same way, zen meditation seems like nonsense to the outsider, but makes perfect sense to the Zen Buddhist.

So are we all just wasting our time here, trying to compare the uncomparable? Or perhaps it's not the comparison that's important, but the attempt?

 

[Joedjr]

I would think there would be some "basics" to review or fellowship, for those that view things as one humanity and one Supreme. What attributes of G-d are shared throughout all religions? Maybe we can start here and view the rest of one's religion's dogma as "commentary". Is it possible?

 

[wil]

I would think there would be some "basics" to review or fellowship, for those that view things as one humanity and one Supreme. What attributes of G-d are shared throughout all religions? Maybe we can start here and view the rest of one's religion's dogma as "commentary". Is it possible?

golden rule?

 

[Joedjr]

I was thinking, lets say all religions come from the same hub, like on a wheel. Is it possible to turn around and travel back towards the hub, the center of the wheel, and find common ideas of G-d and creation?

 

[path_of_one]

That's an interesting metaphor. I think you have a point. It is said all mystics speak the same language. This, despite differences in their religions. Perhaps this is because all mystics are looking toward God and not at the institution, doctrine, or tradition itself. The religion becomes a road to travel back to God, and on that distant destination, all eyes are focused.