|
|
On the one hand it seems to be saying "everyone has something of value - no culture possesses the whole truth." Which is a humble and admirable sentiment - an antidote to bigotry. So it *can* be a positive idea within religion.
On the other hand ... It can also be seen as dismissing the very real differences in cultures - in effect its saying you primitive people are just glimpsing MY ONE TRUE GOD and the valuable bits of your religion are the bits that I can contort and warp until it fits MY IDEA of God.
- which is of course the complete opposite of humility.
I take the view that all religions teach us something about what it is to be human.All gods and all religions reflect their makers. (and if you read the Old testament with that in mind, the 6 o'clock news from Palestine and Kosovo makes a lot of sense in that light.) The study of religion is the study of how people view the world and humanity.Gods reflect both what is good and evil in mankind. Which is exactly what you would expect if we created them.
The ecumenical movement sees the commonality of religions a reflecting the "unity of God".As an atheist I agree that there is commonality in religions and Ithink it's because people are people and any similarity reflects the commonality of human experience.
You can tell a lot about humans by examining the gods they
create/choose to worship.
Also, from the human side of it, the purpose of religion is
oftentimes to bring people together, to form a sense of
community. Surely they'd want to include as many people
as they can in their community, so they should expand their
religion to include other religions.
It almost makes me wonder why more religionists don't take
this approach, since it appears so logical to me. Then I
remember that many people use religion to give themselves
a sense of superiority, that they know something that very
few people know. They desperately want to feel special
and powerful; they dimly grasp that knowledge is power and
that an elite group is more "special" the fewer people are
included. So they claim their small group is the only one
that has the True Knowledge, so they can feel special by
belonging to an elite and wielding (imaginary) power over
the rest of us. (Carl Funk aa #1229)
In my experience, at least, it's usually put forward by people who
think Lutheran and Methodist are extremely different, and that
Judism is one of those "out there" cults.
At eight, when I first heard of the animism of some groups, it was
already clear to me this wasn't anything remotely like the Methodist
folks I knew.
About the only thing I've seen that seems to unite _nearly_ all
organised religions is that the people on the top have more rights
and privledges than those they "lead". What a surprise. (Dewey Henize) Lucent
i.e. untrue.
So then,
Why should we take seriously what anyone has to say about the nature
or desires of the god(s)? (pan)
(1) The idea is a cop out in that it instead of making the theist do some
critical thinking about why so many different people has such radically
different concept of god(s), the theist can simply ignore these differences
with a nice platitude which not only stop the thought process but lets
him/her feel good about themselves because they are so open minded and
accepting about other religions -- unlike those "bad" Christians who used to
burn people at the stake for simply holding different beliefs.
(2) Building on #1, the idea may be a good one if it does indeed lead to
acceptance and tolerance by theists for those of different religions.
Somewhat off the question, I think the different views of god are very
telling about the people who developed these concepts. IMO, I think the
different concepts tell us a great deal about the history of the people
involved and their thought processes. It gives us some insight into their
psyche so to speak. For example, from what I read, Tibetans were originally
a very fierce, war-like people in their distant past and there little
cooperation/common ground between the different groups. When Buddhism was
introduced, it helped serve as a force to bring peace and harmony to the
land at a time when the people were looking for a way to change things.
Likewise, I read an article once that asked the question as to why, of all
the different religions that developed in the Middle East during ancient
times, the Judaism (and it's offshoots) are still around while the worship
of the other gods faded away. One possible answer was that the original
worshippers were nomadic desert dwellers. Since they were nomadic, they
needed to travel as light as possible. That made it inconvenient to carry
around a lot of idols. By making their god an invisible god, their concept
of god was no longer bounded by a physical representation of their god --
rather the absence made them use their imagination and conceive of a god who
was also without bounds. (Bud)
I think this ignorance well serves a memetic purpose, in
an age when the existence of other religions isn't easily
overlooked, and exposure to them is common. Since, if
the other religion is basically the same, you can just stay
with yours, and not bother with dwelling deeper into the
other faith.
I think it is bound to fail where two or more religious
communities border each other, and long-held hostilities
kept focus on the differences. (Daneel aa #323)
This notwithstanding, the idea does have some value in that
it eliminates religious differences - differences that have
caused thousands of years of needless suffering. Since we
have to live among the religious, I would rather see them
believe in the ecumenist idea than the divisive sectarianism
we see so often. (Chris Nelson)
Among Christian religions, there seems to be an attempt to reach out to
each other but they inevitably bonk heads over one doctrinal point or
another. Since the Jewish and Islamic religions reject Jesus as a savior,
I don't see the Christians, Jews, and Muslims ever really getting
together. Politics alone would also prevent that in the foreseeable future.
As far as Hindus, Buddhists, and animalists, the monotheists tend to
regard them as heathens, idolaters, devil-worshippers, or worse. I'm sure
that many of the followers of these religions, especially those who felt
xtian or Muslim persecution over the years, more than return the
compliment. (John Hachmann aa#1782)
As for my own, obviously a lot of religions have been derived from a
common source, or one from the other. There also have been exchanges
of views amongst them. This makes a lot of god concepts similar.
Perhaps we can also say that in order for us to call something a
religion it must have a certain recognizable god-concept, so this may
simply be due to the way we defined things. There may also be a
tendency inherent to religion which leads to a certain god-concept.
I think the dissimilarities between the god-concepts of the various
religions are ultimately too large for this view to hold. What does
the Greek goddess Aphrodite, the gnostic's demiurge and the spirits of
the animists you mention, have in common which would merit the idea
that both are different variations on something which is essentially
one concept? Nothing, afaics. (DJ Nozem aa#1465)
Even when religous people desert one sect to join another, it is the
secular ideals of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of conscience"
that enables them to do so. Few religions preach that it is okay to
jump ship when the mood strikes, however ecumenical they may be.
It is unclear whether the movement is genuine, or more of the old, "the
enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of stuff.
So the danger here--and I think you can see this to some extent with
Bush's "faith-based" bullshit--is that they will unite to atack the
humanistic influence in society and to weaken the influence of
democratic government. Certainly, "secular humanism," and not the evil
protestants, catholics, muslims, or whatever, has become the great
bugaboo of the religious right in the US, and I don't think the focus
is accidental. (Sean C)