Thomas said:
My point always is that it is an error of reason, logic, philosophy and metaphysics, to assume that every path is valid. If such is not the case, then everything that Christ and the Buddha said, is wrong.
Love does not always mean staying quiet.
Speaking for myself, I don't consider "every path valid
," per se. But what is "
valid," anyway!?! Maybe we ought to think about what this means, since the answer isn't likely the same for each of us. This is a keg of nails which might best be addressed as a separate topic, in another forum (being truly
comparative, or cross-religious) ...
... but from a Christian perspective, let's not forget -
There are over 25,000 registered sects (or denominations) of Christianity ... and while there is agreement on
many points, there are also some
widely varying views on the very
same Biblical passages and key ideas. Oh, say, gee - the idea of the
Trinity! Or ...
Mary Magdalene's relationship to Christ! lol
So, sometimes I probably get a little gung ho about trying to find points of similarity, while at other times I enjoy tossing in my
extremely non-conventional viewpoints regarding the most essential of Christian ideas & teachings. But I do not challenge the historicity of Christ, or the importance of his Teachings,
and certainly not the basic message (we agree that he taught -
and demonstrated - Love). Everything else, in my book, is fair game -
in the right Spirit. And thus, as you suggest, Thomas, we should not remain silent ... if we are sure that our words are kind, helpful, and true. Perhaps a yardstick which I will pay a bit more attention to ...
I'm not saying that Christianity and pluralism are easy bedfellows; I struggle with it constantly.
Thomas said:
As do I. If a religion is comfortable, something is wrong.
My struggle, is that people (and theologies, and psychologies), seem to get their notions of
inherent worth all tied up into the illusion that
one person is better than another. And though we're looking at
religious/spiritual beliefs largely, on this forum, I think we might benefit by recalling the following words of Section 2.1 of the Preamble of the US Declaration of Independence:
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
[/font]
Now, quibble as we may over the precise wording of this idea, and prefer as some may to look at this more humanistically (and if so, fine) ... does anyone really have a problem with this statement in & of itself? Self-evident, it says. What did they mean by that? Why not, "very likely," or ... "It really, really just seems like," .... or "Surely it is thus:"?
Because it should be self-evident. What does that mean? (rhetorical)
Didn't mean to jump so quickly up on that soapbox ... but it does seem to me like - it can be difficult to discuss religious
beliefs and
preferences - if our stance is that some are
better than others,
and if in proposing such a thing ... we don't distinguish between one's
self, or essential being (whatever that might be) .... and one's feelings, thoughts, ideas on a subject ... and the extent to which
these may be caught up with/in, heavily laden by, religious notions/teachings/trappings.
Now, if anyone can wade through that, then - so much for my valiant effort - I think you may still see why we are often advised that
in mixed company, we should
not discuss - > yes indeed,
religion & politics.
As an esotericist, I can tell you from
my experience (and from NO OTHER perspective) ... that one fella over here might radiate like the sun (!) ... but
only intellectually - and thus, emotionally speaking, he might not be the warmest person you've ever met. Meanwhile,
she "wasn't the brightest bulb in the pack," as a dear friend of mind sometime says ...
but, who might respond more to the Love of the Christ, or the lessons of Christian charity? Hmmm. I am reminded of
I Corinthians 13, but, to go further:
For example, between a whole classroom of college students, all taking a
world religions class (which may not be far from CR - and I hope I don't get swatted by the mods for going so far out on a limb here) ... there may be men & women of ages from 18 to 81. They may be Muslim, Christian, Wiccan, agnostic, militant moderates (as my philosophy professor used to say), and just plain drunk or absent-minded. For some folks, alas, the class is just a credit .... but for anyone that visits CR
even twice - we've probably ruled out the dolts, otherwise, why bother?
So what's that leave? It's all about common ground. And the irony is, the harder we try to yank it out from someone else, the more of
our own, we lose. Common means
shared. And that's what Christ taught.
The "Establishment" (forgive, I know not what else to say) of Christ's day didn't want what he had to offer, for various reasons. But the
common people - did! They were
hungry for it, and so he "fed them." And he did so using the
language of the masses, and with ordinary, everyday examples. I'm channelling common wisdom here, folks - and my ears are ringing like mad, so I must go.
But we ought to think about it for a sec. If, & when, once any discussion has moved outside of the "realm of the Christian spirit," then I think we can all recognize it -
to a greater or lesser extent, but I also think we must also all -
do our best to help bring it back. Perhaps this goes without saying, but what if not?
I'm the first to own up that the ideas I bring to this - and other - forums are not likely to
immediately fit ... perhaps never. But, if even
one person resonates, then -
even if it but helps them to help define their own faith, by knowing what they
don't believe - then have I not rendered a service? Yes, that's a dangerous argument. Our effort
should not be simply to stir folk up (at least, not always). But if it isn't done from time to time, just think what the result would be.
That says a lot about energies, and I look at it from
my own perspective, while I know
we each have one.
I love that. And it is also a struggle.
Israel = struggle ....
Immanuel = peace ... Hmmm, Rejoice, Rejoice,
Immanuel shall come to
Thee, O Israel. Neat.
I do not try to make a synthesis religion
Thomas said:
But there are many voices here doing just that, and this is what I argue against. That is relativistic pluralism, and that is invariably what my posts are aimed at.
Many voices. Sounds like pluralism. Brings to mind a choir. Many voices. Out of harmony, just noise. In concert, and we often use words like "angelic," and
beautiful!
Thomas said:
Do I come across as belligerant? I never try to push anyone out into the cold - quite the reverse, I would rather they were 'in here' - but when God asks 'where is thy brother' I hope I can say "I tried..."
I don't think I've yet seen belligerent on CR. Something that warms me inside, as a matter of fact.
Even if the world were headed for One Religion (some believe this, some do not), do we really think it's gonna happen tomorrow? Or that it should? I don't. But God forbid another
single soul should see things the way I do. I wouldn't wish that madness on anyone!
Beauty, wonders, bliss, perhaps - but that's not a 24/7 thing ...
yet.
How about some words of wisdom from good ol' Immanuel ...
...
Kant, that is
p ) ....
... really though:
Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.
Who said it before Kant, and how did he say it? And why is it punny?
Ooops, Mary M. Oh yeah ...
that's what this was about!
Andrew
