For those that are Christian--we are all members of the same body. For those that are Judeo-Christian-Muslim there is but one God. These are the dominating faiths of our day. If they believe in one God, shall they ever unite with one voice? ---"And on that day His name shall be One..." Zechariah
What a lovely thought. All who believe that they serve God act as if their service counts for something. I just think that people mostly like to believe in themselves. When another challenges their belief system they become too insecure or defensive or offended. How many can objectively question their own faith and how they measure up to their own standard? I think that the majority are more in love with self-righteousness than with God. It can be hard to admit fault or flaw, but who is perfect? What a shame that people will allow their own insecurities to prevent them from communicating with others as well as humbling their selves in the sight of the Lord.
It takes WAY more than what you stated to unite people from different religions, and even people from the same religion but different cults. I personally pray that all believers would unite someday, and we'll actually forget for ONE second that we may not be from the same religion, but heck we're following the same God...that's good enough for me.
But this is easier said than done if you ask me, from what I see, the idea of superiority is the dominating idea now, everyone is so proud of his/her religion to the extent that they resent and hate people from other religions and cults, and considering them the wrong and evil side.
So I believe that unitll people change thier attitude towards each other, there will be NO unity.
I'm the patron saint of the denial,
With an angel face and a taste for suicidal.
That depends. Jesus taught that all the law and the prophets hinged on two things: Loving God and Loving You Neighbor As Yourself, further defining your "Neighbor" as "anyone that needs you." Ask your own heart the question, "Am I really doing that?"
It maybe that we all would be "weighed in the balance and found wanting." And please note that I used the word WE. That includes myself. There are times when I wonder if I can really honestly say I come up to the mark.
Measuring each other by our own yardstick isn't going to work. We must face God's Mirror, and see how we reflect in that glass. Man will not judge man. To God we stand or fall. But we really need a check-up now and then.
God Bless.
Pen
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
I think that people don’t realize that God will meet you where you are. You don’t have to reach some level of perfection before God will recognize your worth. Being a Christian, I believe that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. I realize that there are many who don’t agree with my beliefs, and that is certainly not for me to judge. As a Christian it is not for me to judge another, but to pray for them and behave toward them as a representative of the Lord. I think if people would spend more time focusing on their own sin and the needs of others instead of their own needs and the sins of others we would have a very different world. Unity is hindered when people fail to put God first and realize that total agreement will not be possible since we are all growing on this journey (or at least we should be). All of the factions and hatefulness can really put a bad taste in the mouth of the unbeliever, and we are accountable for that. I hear so many people and they sound like the self-righteous Pharisee that thanked God he was not like the humble sinner asking for forgiveness. People like power and recognition and that has always caused division.
never, never, never.
"He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll
There are over ten thousand religious traditions, denominations, and sects in the world.Originally Posted by jon1jt
There is only one science.
You want unity? We are here for you. You are welcome.
There was a time that the greatest scientific minds believed that the flat Earth was the center of the universe. But thousands of years ago Job said that the earth was a sphere suspended from nothing. The Bible is full of truths that science can not yet explain. Scientist can be closed minded in their religion just as anyone else. Once you close your mind you become blind. Are you guilty of that? There is always room for discussion and understanding of where another is coming from.
I sure hope that wasn’t offensive!
No. There are many branches of science, and frankly they often quarrel as to which branch of science a certain thing may fall under. For example, are diatoms plants or animals? Is this new discovery a compound or an element? Is Pluto a planet after all? How many actual planets are there? This particular animal is non-existent or extinct or is it? Where one will take evidence and say yeah, another will take the same evidence and say nay. Why? Because one of them has to be right and when it is determined which one actually is, it can then be said that science was correct all along.
Come to think of it, that may explain all the differences in religion as well.
Some of us laugh
Some of us cry
Some of us smoke
Some of us lie
But it's all just the way
that we cope with our lives...
I dont see this ever happening. Before you worry about getting all the believers of the Abrahmic God System to agree with each other, you might try to get the different sects within each of the religions to agree with each other - something else that is never going to happen.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
Agreement would be nice, but I would settle for empathy, understanding, and compassion. Why is that so hard?
All of the disagreements you listed within science are minor quibbles - nothing whatsoever like baptists vs. catholics, christians vs. moslems, etc. IOW, the analogy is faulty. Anyone who actually understands science, or who is not speaking from prejudice and just trying to "spin" things to fit into his preconceived notions, would not attempt to make this analogy.
Science has to do with actually understanding. Religion is based on wish-fulfillment. Science is based on finding the best theory to actually explain observed facts. Religion is based on authority and condemnation of competing authorities. Science holds up objectivity as an ideal to work toward. Religion is subjective in its essense and proudly so. Science can actually make progress in its efforts in time, though sometimes it is slow, and it is accompanied by a lot of screaming and hollering. Religion only changes when it is forced to and then with an INCREDIBLE amount of screaming, hollering, and many times violence and murder.
IOW, these are two entirely different approaches to life.
But thanks for caring to send your very best, preacher. It's just not good enough.
Beautiful. But try to get your message to those who believe in a literal hell for the "sin" of not agreeing with them.
I merely believe that those who disagree with me on significant issues concerning ontology are merely wrong. And I will admit the possibility that, being human, I could be wrong and my opponents could theoretically be right - or we both could be wrong.
Try getting your average bible-thumper to empathize with me in the above attitude. And good luck with that, my friend.
I think on this often. I suppose I would probably fall into the Bible-thumper category, being a devout follower- and the wife of a preacher, but I just can’t understand the kind of attitude that we are both aware of. I do believe in a literal hell for sin, but it’s not for me to say that someone is going to hell. I’m worried enough about keeping myself from it. It’s a lot of work to try to keep myself on the straight and narrow, so to speak. Like you I believe that I could be wrong, I constantly examine. I think that this is where the attitude comes from. I think that many fail to objectively examine themselves. Anyone can prove what they want to prove to themselves. I hope I’m making since. I think that the hateful attitude comes from fear and ignorance. Perhaps people take that attitude because they don’t want to question their own beliefs and find that they were wrong. I believe that by questioning one can obtain greater knowledge and strength. I’ve certainly grown from my mistakes more than from my successes. Aren’t we supposed to be loving? Is that universal to all religions? I have a limited knowledge of other religions, but from what I’ve seen that’s universal. I hope I don’t sound critical.
Your post here is in the same spirit as the talk given by an ex-Baptist preacher I heard this past weekend at my local Unitarian-Universalist fellowship.
The guy was in his mid-60s and had spent his life, up until about 4 years ago, as a traditionalist literalist christian.
He suddenly just lost it and began to realize that his religion was based, ultimately, on fear and guilt - the language of love used by baptists did not ring true anymore to him. He has now changed to the point where
1. He believes that a literal eternal hell is just a sick idea that he can no longer accept in any way.
2. He still believes in a god and an afterlife, but the god he believes in now is understood only in terms of love, i.e., a loving relationship with all persons. Love cannot involve or countenance fear or guilt regarding the ultimate source of our experienced reality.
3. Thus, he believes in universal salvation for all persons, regardless of what religious belief they follow. i.e., being a christian is not necessary for a personal relationship with god.
In his talk he mentioned that he accepted all, including unbelievers or atheists, as children of god, and believed it possible for even such to be persons of good will.
I was somewhat moved by his talk and in chatting with him afterwards, we didn't even get to the "agree to disagree" language - we just talked of what we agreed upon, seeing that is what is of importance, as opposed to focusing on disagreement. What we basically agreed upon was that how one lived one's life and one's relationship with people in general was the important thing in life, and not getting others to agree to some abstract concept concerning the ultimate questions of life - i.e., god belief vs. atheism/agnosticism is a less important decision than that of love/good will vs. fear/guilt.
BTW, he was still involved as an counselor with many relatives and friends who remained in the fold - his job for decades had been the associate pastor in a large church, serving mainly as a spiritual and grief counselor (his own wife now suffers from Alzheimer's, I learned).
He expressed the fact that he was quite aware he had grown up and lived in kind of cultural bubble and knew little of non-christian religions or cultures, so I recommended he read some Thomas Merton, Michael Novak, and/or Alan Watts, just to get into some radically different perspectives than that in which he had been indoctrinated all of his life.
So, yes, MH, love vs. fear is the ultimate question. I sense an agreement here between us.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
