Can We Unite With All Our Differences & Peacefully Coexist In the World?

[Amica2]

Sometimes fanatical religious people make no sense at all. A fanatical Jew may hate both Christians and Muslims. Fanatical Christian really hates just Muslims and would love to "love a Jew to death" to convert them to Christianity. Fanatical Muslims hates the first two just as equally. Where is this hate coming from, really, because there is no room for it in any of our religions?

Most mind boggling are Christians and Muslims! Some Christians hate Muslims simply because Muslims do not believe Jesus divine. No matter that Muslims love Jesus, recognize him as the Messiah of the House of Israel and expect his second coming. "It's not enough," say the Christians. "You either believe him divine or we hate you forever!" "Yeah, but Jews do not recognize him at all...so, why...?" reply confused Muslims. "Oh, stop with the Jew hate, you Moslem!" answer Christians. "We will love the Jews to death 'til they accept Jesus, for he was one of their own!"

Makes no sense to me (and I am not advocating hating the Jews because of Jesus!)!

One would assume that all Jews would love Christians as their "lost" relatives. Christians would love Jews for their religious roots and would love Muslims for accepting Jesus less than a god. And Muslims would love both Jews and Christians since Islam is meant to unite both. Christianity and Islam are really dependent on Judaism, like children on parents.

So, why do some hate? Why do we generalize? Can't we unite under One God? Is it ever possible?

 

[wil]

Sigh.....this^

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amica —

Sometimes fanatical religious people make no sense at all.

Fanatics of any ilk can often seem that way. They can also seem chillingly grounded and reasonable, too ...

A fanatical ... Where is this hate coming from, really, because there is no room for it in any of our religions?

It comes from the person, not the religion.

Most mind boggling are Christians and Muslims ...

But really this is a minority, a small percentage.

When you get right down to it, it's a tribe thing.

I live in London, one of the most ethnically diverse places on the planet. My kids grew up in the city. Two went to university and were shocked at the degree of casual racism among those who have not grown up in diverse communities. The degree of stereotyping was, for them, boggling ... what they see as adding colour to the cultural mix, their friends see as a different tribe and therefore, underneath the veneer, there's fear and suspicion.

So, why do some hate?

Fear. Revenge ... all manner of reasons

Why do we generalize?

Because it's easier to rest on assumptions than actually seek out the answers, and sometimes we don't like the answers because they will not allow us to rest in our assumptions.

Can't we unite under One God? Is it ever possible?

Yes, it is possible because it has been, and is being, done, daily. It's just the good guys rarely make a song and dance about what they do, whereas those who like to highlight difference and distinction, or fan the flames of discord, like to make a lot of noise.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Yes, it is possible because it has been, and is being, done, daily. It's just the good guys rarely make a song and dance about what they do, whereas those who like to highlight difference and distinction, or fan the flames of discord, like to make a lot of noise.

You sound like such a wil!

 

[Namaste Jesus]

I'm all for a peaceful coexistence, but why just the Abrahamic faiths? Shouldn't Hindus and other eastern philosophies be factored into the equation as well?

 

[wil]

The heathens, we have to have peace with heathens....lol.

I know there are Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Hindu.issues...and I don't get the news from the borders of Pakistan or other countries which have these demographics...but our issues are largely amongst us abrahamics....solve this it would go a long way...

 

[BigJoeNobody]

I'm all for a peaceful coexistence, but why just the Abrahamic faiths? Shouldn't Hindus and other eastern philosophies be factored into the equation as well?

The heathens, we have to have peace with heathens....lol.

I know there are Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Hindu.issues...and I don't get the news from the borders of Pakistan or other countries which have these demographics...but our issues are largely amongst us abrahamics....solve this it would go a long way...

Not sure if wil is being facetious or not, but I agree with him on this one. To unite the Abrahamics would be very beneficial to world issues. after that we can start talking how to make peace with the Polytheists and such (non-abrahamics). All 3 from a theological standpoint issue warnings to being too comfortable living with Polytheists. But nothing in any has banned being polite and getting along.

 

[wil]

The heathens thing...completely.facetious... But we have very little issues with sikhs, hindus, buddhists.... The countries that have them as a majority are not actively on a world domination kick... But the forced communist atheists...what I am getting at is it isn't the religions necessarily that are hindering peace, but the nations and alliances that they are in.

 

[Thomas]

But we have very little issues with sikhs, hindus, buddhists....

Agreed, but from what I've been hearing, regional issues between them are on the increase?

what I am getting at is it isn't the religions necessarily that are hindering peace, but the nations and alliances that they are in.

Hear, hear!

My first comment is a reflection on news from the region, and reading Arundhati Roy's excoriating criticisms of the Indian Govt., whose crimes against its own people are ignored in the West because the govt. supports western economic ideals.

I mean, forgive me for saying this, but when I am asked to donate for those suffering in hardship in India, I do get quite voluble about a govt that's more interested in funding its nuclear weapons and space programmes, than in sorting out ills closer to home.

Having said that, we have the same situation here, with the burden falling on charities to raise money to pay for services that local and central govt. should be funding.

 

[wil]

I mean, forgive me for saying this, but when I am asked to donate for those suffering in hardship in India, I do get quite voluble about a govt that's more interested in funding its nuclear weapons and space programmes, than in sorting out ills closer to home.

Having said that, we have the same situation here, with the burden falling on charities to raise money to pay for services that local and central govt. should be funding.

Change the word India to U (S or K) and we agree again.

 

[Thomas]

Change the word India to U (S or K) and we agree again.

Cool for us, but I bet dead boring for everyone else ... or maybe the other way round?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Most mind boggling are Christians and Muslims! Some Christians hate Muslims simply because Muslims do not believe Jesus divine.

It is indeed unfortunate that some have taken it upon themselves to do harm to others in the name of religion. I'm not condoning hatred in any way, shape or form, but you must realize how insulting it can be to Christians, for someone to say Jesus is anything less than God or more importantly that the crucifixion never happened. It spits in the face of our entire religion and effectively calls the scripture we base it on a lie. Christians should love Jews, Muslims and everyone else for that matter as our neighbors, because Jesus Immanuel, [God with us], taught us to do so, but certainly Christians cannot be expected to rejoice over having the Lord's divinity questioned or being told that he didn't die on the cross for our sins.

To unite the Abrahamics would be very beneficial to world issues. after that we can start talking how to make peace with the Polytheists and such (non-abrahamics). All 3 from a theological standpoint issue warnings to being too comfortable living with Polytheists.

Sounds like if Christians, Jews and Muslims ever did unite, it would be out of a common mistrust and fear...

 

[wil]

I'm not condoning hatred in any way, shape or form, but you must realize how insulting it can be to Christians, for someone to say Jesus is anything less than God or more importantly that the crucifixion never happened. It spits in the face of our entire religion and effectively calls the scripture we base it on a lie.

Isn't that the same as saying to a Muslim that he is G!d? That their scripture is a lie?

That sword swings both ways. If we desire to believe our good books and want people to respect our beliefs....we also need to allow them to believe theirs and respect.their beliefs (that the crucifixion didn't happen and Jesus is not.G!d)....otherwise we are just the hypocrites He spoke of...

How did the dang log get my eye?

 

[Ahanu]

You sound like such a wil!

Agreed. Maybe they are body-swapping Christians.

 

[Namaste Jesus]

Isn't that the same as saying to a Muslim that he is G!d? That their scripture is a lie?

Absolutely. Give that man a cigar! That's the point. I was specifically addressing Amica's comment in the OP that she didn't understand how Christians could hate Muslims just because they didn't believe Jesus was divine and I did so from a very Christian perspective to illustrate that point. You are correct, it goes both ways. When we are adamant about our beliefs, it rubs them the wrong way. When they are adamant about their beliefs, it rubs us the wrong way. The way I see it, the only way Christians, Jews and Muslims will ever unite is if religion is left out of it and we just try to get along as neighbors. Not too optimistic on that one though.

 

[Abdullah]

Sometimes fanatical religious people make no sense at all. A fanatical Jew may hate both Christians and Muslims. Fanatical Christian really hates just Muslims and would love to "love a Jew to death" to convert them to Christianity. Fanatical Muslims hates the first two just as equally. Where is this hate coming from, really, because there is no room for it in any of our religions?

Most mind boggling are Christians and Muslims! Some Christians hate Muslims simply because Muslims do not believe Jesus divine. No matter that Muslims love Jesus, recognize him as the Messiah of the House of Israel and expect his second coming. "It's not enough," say the Christians. "You either believe him divine or we hate you forever!" "Yeah, but Jews do not recognize him at all...so, why...?" reply confused Muslims. "Oh, stop with the Jew hate, you Moslem!" answer Christians. "We will love the Jews to death 'til they accept Jesus, for he was one of their own!"

Makes no sense to me (and I am not advocating hating the Jews because of Jesus!)!

One would assume that all Jews would love Christians as their "lost" relatives. Christians would love Jews for their religious roots and would love Muslims for accepting Jesus less than a god. And Muslims would love both Jews and Christians since Islam is meant to unite both. Christianity and Islam are really dependent on Judaism, like children on parents.

So, why do some hate? Why do we generalize? Can't we unite under One God? Is it ever possible?

Yes unity is possible but it won't happen I'm afraid as what Allah swt says is true!

Allah says in Quran that there will always be enemies trying to take Muslims away from their religion so Muslims will always have to defend against those belligerents!

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I don't believe wars occur due to religion.

Wars are about material gain. And in such cases real-estate is the crown jewel of possessions.

In my case, I will advocate that violence must be measured at the microscopic scale before projecting it onto the resulting warring Lemmings.

A child is raised on milk of the female...when that female gives no more milk...she is eaten.

This causes the Cain is angry syndrome. So I say if kids are raised drinking the milk of mother and then later eat those mothers ...violence is in their manifest destiny.

 

[possibility]

Religion hinders peace only in so much as it places more importance on what distinguishes it from others than on what it has in common. The focus tends to be on where one religion ends and the 'other' begins. What we think is 'central' to our religion is only what defines our boundaries. Does my skin or clothing define who I am? Then, should the divinity of Jesus define Christianity?

Religion is constructed to appear more concrete and tangible, more real, and therefore more believable, more relevant to our lives. But all the words, symbols, rituals, statues and images we use to achieve this can date and lose their significance - their relevance to contemporary life questioned or challenged. Land claimed for the faithful, too, can be lost or taken away. What we think is our strength is more of a weakness.

None of these material elements of religion really are the essence of that religion, so why do we react to their loss, destruction or challenge as if they were? Why do we try to protect them with such fierceness?

We are all talking about the same God, we all respect the life and example of Jesus and we all seek to nurture the same higher order thinking, values and spiritual connection to each other at the heart of our religions. Meaning no disrespect to any particular belief, but why do any of these other details matter so much?

If we didn't have the bible, would Christianity exist? Likewise with the Koran or Torah, or with the land around Jerusalem? These are scary but important questions to really consider. Does our religion insist on its concrete-ness, on defining the boundary between what it is and what it isn't, or is there more to it than that?

This dichotomy between is and isn't seems to be how we have come to understand nature or the universe in general over the years, but is this really how religion should work? Is this even how the universe works, for that matter, or just how we have learned to simplify it in our minds?

What if religion was less about the solid, tangible details (a piece of land, a book, a single human life, death or bloodline) and more about understanding how people so different in appearance, location, language, genetics, cultural background, political or even religious ideology, can still recognise that an important connection exists between them...?

 

[Thomas]

Hi possibility —

I agree in principle, and offer only this as commentary:

Religion hinders peace only in so much as it places more importance on what distinguishes it from others than on what it has in common.

Well fundamentalists and hard-liners do, in religion as they do in every other sphere of life, but generally there is a healthy degree of dialogue between the various Traditions and denominations — more than one might imagine reading here.

The focus tends to be on where one religion ends and the 'other' begins.

Again, depends on who's looking, what they're looking for, and why.

What we think is 'central' to our religion is only what defines our boundaries.

Hardly only. Then again I hold to what is central in my religion, and it has no boundaries ...

Does my skin or clothing define who I am? Then, should the divinity of Jesus define Christianity?

Absolutely. Without that, Christianity would lose its essential identity.

Religion is constructed to appear more concrete and tangible, more real, and therefore more believable, more relevant to our lives.

Surely it would be a nonsense were that otherwise?

But all the words, symbols, rituals, statues and images we use to achieve this can date and lose their significance – their relevance to contemporary life questioned or challenged.

Indeed so, but that is the role of theology / philosophy toreview and update where necessary — but remember religion focuses on the Absolute and Truth, which does not change nor has a shelf-life.

We are all talking about the same God, we all respect the life and example of Jesus and we all seek to nurture the same higher order thinking, values and spiritual connection to each other at the heart of our religions. Meaning no disrespect to any particular belief, but why do any of these other details matter so much?

Ah well, the devil, as they say, is in the detail.

If we didn't have the bible, would Christianity exist?

No.

Does our religion insist on its concrete-ness, on defining the boundary between what it is and what it isn't, or is there more to it than that?

Yes. I'd say the concrete-ness reflects the real, on one level, and the human capacity for insubstantial intellectual abstraction on another.

This dichotomy between is and isn't seems to be how we have come to understand nature or the universe in general over the years, but is this really how religion should work? Is this even how the universe works, for that matter, or just how we have learned to simplify it in our minds?

What if religion was less about the solid, tangible details (a piece of land, a book, a single human life, death or bloodline) and more about understanding how people so different in appearance, location, language, genetics, cultural background, political or even religious ideology, can still recognise that an important connection exists between them...?

Well again, I'd say religion does that in the ongoing dialogue between traditions.

 

[possibility]

Hi Thomas
Thanks for the commentary. I have been reading many of your posts around this site, and your discussions with wil in particular have intrigued me.

I was raised Catholic and work within a church community, where I am tentatively encouraged to both deepen and discuss my faith, to read the bible, to pray, etc. as well as to be 'tolerant' if not inclusive of different faiths.

But what happens when, in doing this, my developing understanding of God and my interpretation of the bible begins to conflict with church doctrine? When I pray for understanding, and it leads me away from what I was taught, do I trust and follow the spiritual guidance I asked for, or do I pull back to the safety of church doctrine and community like-mindedness? With so many other Christian denominations available, I took a chance and cautiously followed spiritual guidance in search of an absolute truth, but this path then led me to question even the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. When abandoning these fundamentals actually brought more clarity and unity to scripture, rather than less, I was surprised to say the least.

Right now I'm exploring the sensation of being cast adrift. I take exception to any implication that I'm no longer Christian, even though I consider myself to be following the teachings and example of Jesus and the bible. I get frustrated with feeling like I need to search for a different label, a different church community, when I no longer recognise clear distinctions between them all. This where I'm at, just in case my language tends toward the emotional at times...

Christianity perceived as an identity that must be preserved is counter-productive to what Jesus taught, in my opinion. It constructs boundaries between what Christianity is and what it isn't that aren't really there when you explore this territory without fear. I personally don't think it matters whether or not we believe in the trinity, in the divinity of Jesus or his bodily resurrection - as long as we believe and follow Jesus' example as a human being in an intimate relationship with God as indwelling and omnipresent spirit. This is more the essence of Christianity without boundaries, to me. This is my anchor.

As far as I'm concerned, the rest of it tends to get in the way - it's a whole bunch of boundaries and limitations that prevent humanity from developing an awareness and understanding of our own (frighteningly) colossal potential and responsibility as consciousness in connection with all matter through the eternal, limitless source of all life, power, wisdom and possibility that is 'God'. That's the best way I can describe it in my experience.