Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,143,382 members, 7,781,081 topics. Date: Friday, 29 March 2024 at 08:32 AM

The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. (3785 Views)

7 Types Of People In RELIGION SECTION / The Goddess (female God) And Females In Religion / Why Do Atheists Come Here Since They Do Not Believe In Religion ? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (Reply) (Go Down)

The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 7:20pm On Mar 23, 2011
He was on a visit to Jerusalem and he struck up a conversation with an elderly man in the Muslim Quarter. This shopkeeper seemed keen to sell him jewelry. Moreso, since the shopkeeper was a Sufi mystic, he seemed even keener to engage him in matters of the spirit.

He told him that religions are human inventions, so we must avoid the temptation of, for instance, worshipping Islam rather than Allah. He said what matters is opening yourself up to the mystery that goes by the word God, and that can be done in any religion.

As he tempted him with more turquoise and silver, he asked what the man was doing in Jerusalem. When he said he was researching in order to write on the world’s religions, the shopkeeper put down the jewelry, looked at him intently, and, placing a finger on his chest for emphasis, said, "Do not write false things about the religions."

Mystics often claim that the great religions differ only in the inessentials. They may be different paths but they are ascending the same mountain and they converge at the peak. Examples abound, and I will name three:
[list]
[li]the Daoist sage Laozi, who wrote his classic the Daodejing just before disappearing forever into the mountains;[/li]
[li]the Sufi poet Rumi, who instructs us to "gamble everything for love";[/li]
[li]and the Christian mystic Julian of Norwich, who revels in the so-called feminine aspects of God.[/li]
[/list]

But the focus on this thread will not be on these so-called spiritual superstars.

It is on ordinary religious folk like us — the stories we tell, the doctrines we affirm, and the rituals we practice. And these stories, doctrines, and rituals are so entirely different. Christians do not go on the hajj to Mecca; Jews do not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity; and neither Buddhists nor Hindus trouble themselves about sin or salvation.

So here is the question: What do you think about the Mystics' (and Shopkeeper's) assertion? Is religion truly various surfaces of the same object?
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by JeSoul(f): 7:26pm On Mar 23, 2011
Dulcet! kiss how have you been sir? sorry for the off topic
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 7:30pm On Mar 23, 2011
JeSoul:

Dulcet! kiss how have you been sir? sorry for the off topic
grin Right here, madam Jesoul. I just stopped posting, but I have been coming to read the threads.

Hope you are in sound health and peace? smiley I wish you very well. . . kiss
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by JeSoul(f): 8:36pm On Mar 23, 2011
Dulcet7:

grin Right here, madam Jesoul. I just stopped posting, but I have been coming to read the threads.

Hope you are in sound health and peace? smiley I wish you very well. . . kiss
Thank you oh sir. I am well. We thank God for His never failing mercies. And I am glad that you are well - in heart and in spirit  smiley. And thank you for this nice topic.

Dulcet7:
So here is the question: What do you think about the Mystics' (and Shopkeeper's) assertion? Is religion truly various surfaces of the same object?

 Similar to the 6 Blind men and the Elephant. Reminds me of this verse -
Is 59: "We look for light, but all is darkness;
   for brightness, but we walk in deep shadows.
10 Like the blind we grope along the wall,
feeling our way like people without eyes.

At midday we stumble as if it were twilight;


The message of the bible is the sinfulness of man, his seperation from God, his need for salvation - and the way accomplished and presented by Jesus Christ. Everything thing else is far far on the sidelines. Other religions do not begin to point in this ^ direction as you rightly noted . . .

One has to wonder, are we scratching different surfaces of the same object? or different objects entirely? Or are we scratching different surfaces of the same object, but missing the objective entirely?
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by vescucci(m): 10:18pm On Mar 23, 2011
This is the kinda thread I wanna be posting in. Hi, Dulcet. Been ages, brother.

Your anecdote or allegory is a bit confusing o. I lost comprehension of who [i]he [/i]is. But that is irrelevant to your question and this is my answer:

I believe in God. I'd have added absolutely before but let's say the fact that I 'believe' in Him diminishes that for I don't believe in the sun or in osmosis. I know.

I do not think all religions lead to the same place. No one should believe this. Also, I don't believe in religion because it infers variety. There might very well be a 'way' but it is not a religion. I don't know MANY MANY things but I know some things that I can't accept. Like hell or the trinity (which I may concede to be a manifestation but not a nature). One might practice a religion but not fall short of God's mercy or love because of one's nature and intentions. One might even be an atheist and not be cast away by God. That's why sometimes, it is mere academic pursuit to bother with some things. These are some of the things I believe in. Religions in the true sense of the word are all flawed. Judaism, Christianity and Islam most especially. The Orientals have some things purer but the problem is that they are DEFINITELY man made.

Question: Some people say we're on earth to learn lessons, to love, to this and to that. But when we're done learning, what next? What's the use?

Hi Jay
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 10:27pm On Mar 23, 2011
Thanks for your reasoned response, Jessy.

I believe religions are surfaces of the same object, but that object is not God, at least not directly.

A human's true religious objective is to achieve maximum efficiency in all spheres of life (there is no religion in death).

Efficiency can only be maximized according to the manufacturer's standards, and this is where God comes in.

By the etymology of "re-ligion", it attempts to "bind back together" (establish 100% efficiency by design standards).

This process of "Unit testing" is the common object which can take various courses called religion. The object is same, but the objective is often lost in the excitement.

For every religion, one should be able to ask, 'Does this really increase my efficiency as a creation of God?' i.e. Am I 'helping' God do what he planned when he created me and everything else?

This is why I have little respect for so-called religious persons who have no respect for nature in itself, or for those who use the name of religion to deprive others of their lives and belongings.In either case, they are not only failing at their inaugural objectives, they are destroying other Creations' efficiencies as well.

You made a good point about the Bible's clear message in its distinction. However, I still think religions involve channels of experience.

Consider a learned Greek man in the days of Pythagoras when he devised his math theories. His knowledge of theory and application is in his experience: in his day the information was spiritual, sacred; he was privileged to know, and everything was proven in details before acceptance.

Now consider us "educated people" today. We take some academic things for granted as axioms and we move on to 'tougher' things. Many of us cant even prove the famous Pythagoras theorem, but we know the man and we choose to trust that he was correct.

Last of all, there are uneducated people: e.g. cloth-sellers and house-painters who use a crude form of this theorem when cutting cloth or estimating the slant the ladder must have against the wall. They have never heard of Pythagoras. They dont even know the theorem exists, and they dont know that they dont know. The painter might not even work with the measured distances, he has an accurate gut feeling of the ratios.

The bottom line is that for each of the three categories they have applied the theorem to better themselves at what they do.

Our sole purpose is to maximize the efficiency of our lives' design. Jesus came to show us a tangible form and he gave himself up in the process because it was necessary and THAT was what maximised his own efficiency (he is totally respected across Eastern and Western religions), but I assure you there are some people who have not seen or heard this tangible form and yet they are somehow doing things right!

1 Like

Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 10:33pm On Mar 23, 2011
Vescucci you are warmly welcome, brother. Thanks for joining us. Im replying from my phone cos Im in bed now (my riposte to Jessy was already a mouthful to type!) so I will have to continue this tomorrow, please pardon me. Pax vobiscum!

1 Like

Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by vescucci(m): 12:09am On Mar 24, 2011
Pardon ke? I've been enriched by your response and it even answered somewhat a personal question I wanted to ask a, er, friend of mine. It's too personal to ask here so I might lead you on a bit if you do not mind. Sleep well.

1 Like

Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Sweetnecta: 1:34am On Mar 24, 2011
while mystic idea is not of sound Islam, to quantify Islam by it is absolutely the wrong understanding of Islam.

God mentions His Proper Name to us through that very religion of Islam.

He says to us that the earlier scriptures have been tampered with.

He says there will not be any more book of guidance from Him after the Quran. Hence He guarantees its purity till end of time.

By His choosing to end revelation on Muhammad [as], He made him the only messenger to the entire creation, being the last of those who say as leaders of communities that 'there is no deity to worship but the One Singular Deity; Allah', declaring that Jesus was a messenger [as] of the God [Allah], too, a leader of his community in his time. Allah therefore says that Islam has been chosen for mankind as the only way to Him, since over 1400 years ago. Allah says whosoever desires another way, it is such a person who have lost indeed, because whatever he/she chooses will be rejected.

The Quran identifies what the way is known as; Islam and the adherent is a muslim [not sunni, not shia, not sufi, etc].

Knowledge precedes worship. Guidance of Oneness of God precedes deviance. It is deviance from truth that leads to multiple God or godhead concepts.

A person who deviates from guidance cant say that he/she is obeying the leader he/she professes to follow. If a headmaster arrives at your school, you cant say that the former headmaster is going to be your headmaster just because you hear how wonderful he was in his time, even though there was no reason for you to reject the present headmaster, under whose authority you must have your education. This is the case with prophets, whose tenure came and ended; Moses before Jesus. Jesus before Muhammad. Muhammad the last of them, without ever having any new messenger after him.

A shiny apple may be rotten, similar to falsehood, disbelief. A gem in the rough may be unattractive to those whose hearts have been swayed by deceiver; satan. And I seek protection of God against the acursed satan.

Follow the guidance of the prophet of your time. No one followed Jesus in the time of Moses. No one who truly believed would have rejected Jesus for Moses when the son of Mary was preaching what his Lord revealed to him, which was what he was sent to do.

Why would a true believer no reject Muhammad [as] whose prophetic period we exist in, and not that of either Moses or Jesus [as]?
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Sweetnecta: 1:37am On Mar 24, 2011
finally, it is Islam that is not named after a person or a place. No one worships Islam or Muhammad [as], but all should worship God, Alone.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 8:39am On Mar 24, 2011
Vescucci, good morning and let's have a bite at it shall we? smiley




Sweetnecta good morning to you (I assume you are in Nigeria). Please note that I didnt say a Sufi mystic represents all Muslims, just like the Christian mystic does not represent all Christians.

Rather, the mystics of whatsoever pedigree from Eastern faiths to Western faiths all agree that religion is a cloak, a mask, a covering, a surface.

Im not a mystic but I agree, and this thread is asking: are they correct? If so, then why all the inter-religious conflict?

With due respect to your faith, I do not believe in the idea of a "last prophet", which tends to human worship and blind dogma because each prophet's way of life often generates a new religion or a new perspective on an old one. So if this new viewpoint is taken in isolation of all precedence and current exposure to wholesome truth, trouble will brew.

As long as there is wickedness in the world, God will keep on raising prophets and teachers among men until love snuffs the life out of wickedness to fellow man and nature.

For all the true prophets who have ever been, there is something to learn from each of them. They are shining lights in the dead of the night.

They are there so that you wont make any mistakes they made, if they did, and so you can finish whatever good they started among men.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 12:44pm On Mar 24, 2011
vescucci:

This is the kinda thread I wanna be posting in. Hi, Dulcet. Been ages, brother.

Your anecdote or allegory is a bit confusing o. I lost comprehension of who he [/i]is. But that is irrelevant to your question and this is my answer:

I believe in God. I'd have added absolutely before but let's say the fact that I 'believe' in Him diminishes that for I don't believe in the sun or in osmosis. I know.

I do not think all religions lead to the same place. No one should believe this. Also, I don't believe in religion because it infers variety. There might very well be a 'way' but it is not a religion. I don't know MANY MANY things but I know some things that I can't accept. Like hell or the trinity (which I may concede to be a manifestation but not a nature). One might practice a religion but not fall short of God's mercy or love because of one's nature and intentions. One might even be an atheist and not be cast away by God. That's why sometimes, it is mere academic pursuit to bother with some things. These are some of the things I believe in. Religions in the true sense of the word are all flawed. Judaism, Christianity and Islam most especially. The Orientals have some things purer but the problem is that they are DEFINITELY man made.

Question: Some people say we're on earth to learn lessons, to love, to this and to that. But when we're done learning, what next? What's the use?

Hi Jay

Thanks for posting in the thread, brother. Yes, been ages truly. Haven't really been seeing your posts either smiley

My anecdote or allegory?  grin You don't worry about that, it was only important as an introduction  smiley

I understand your reason for being slow to add "absolutely" to your belief in God, and it is the reason some people say theists and atheists are almost certainly wrong, and themselves tend to be agnostic. The sun and osmosis are easily captured within your experience. You can deny a potted plant of the sun and be in control, watch it grow and bend towards light as it craves for the sun. You can stare at the sun when its powerless, when its about to set or when it's just about rising. Even when its high up in the sky at noon you can stare at it with dark goggles. You can accelerate or impede the process of osmosis. This is something very human about us - we like to be in charge of our experiences. Controlling your experience gives you a form of absolute knowledge, it goes beyond just [i]knowing
. For God, you have to have a faith-kind of knowledge. You can't "make" God do what you want, you can't prevent what you disdain. I understand you very well.

I also do not believe that all religions lead to the same place. However, neglecting human corruption and selfish desires, they all have the same objective: optimization (commonly called salvation).

Having an objective does not mean that the means employed will be justified in the end, except in a perfect world free of wickedness. So I agree that some religions carry out functions that detract rather than sustain the global objective of human salvation.

There might very well be a 'way' but it is not a religion.
+1 I like this. This is why I like to say I am a theist, I believe in God. This "way" you speak of is the common object of all religions.
This is the object which the religions describe its surface, and the objective of this object is optimization of your efficiency a.k.a salvation

As for your points on hell and the trinity (maybe, as well as heaven), I think they are not the more important aspects of your spirit's optimization. This is because they are inquiries into the nature of God and His secrets (encouraged but not of fundamental importance) rather than into your own place in the scheme of things, so if I were you I wouldn't strongly say I cannot accept them, but will concede that maybe they are important enough for the totality of another man's experience of salvation e.g. Christians. If one insists so strongly about the nature of God and the experience of His secrets, is this not like my first point about trying to control God within your experience?

You said the Orientals seem to have something purer. I think by this you mean the Eastern religions tend to place more emphasis on wisdom of experience expressed as didactive oracles/ sayings / logion rather than absolute forms of doctrine like in the West. Oriental religions tend to be more intuitive and individualistic, and I think that is how religion is meant to be. That was also one thing that made Jesus' teachings different from the classical Jewish foundations before him, his Logia.

Mark 1:22 (NLT)
The people were amazed at his teaching, for he taught with real authority--quite unlike the teachers of religious law.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 2:22pm On Mar 24, 2011
Any (other) contrary views? smiley
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by vescucci(m): 4:32pm On Mar 24, 2011
Hi Dulcet. I have a feeling I have a lot to learn from you. Yeah, I kinda stopped posting here for a while cuz there's an egotistical epidemic in this section. If you don't hang out with people like JeSoul or yourself, you may lose your humility and common sense. So I'm selective now.

Hmmm. It seems you're God sent. About two years ago I finally had the courage to admit to myself the things I believed and the things I did not. Initially, I felt so liberated and I was excited. But afterwards were trying times for me. I wonder if I lost or gained in my new outlook. I don't feel that connection with God like I did before even though it was on a placebo. That's why I think religion is immaterial to one's relationship with God. But religion can also do a lot of harm. Because it is dogmatic and fatal to one's faculty of reasoning. Almost no religious argument makes any sense. Mostly there're based on a faulty premise or assumption. I totally get trying to know God on one's terms. I was conscious of this, that I might be too empirical about my spirituality. But when I see some people talking about their fantastic beliefs, I get a little pissed cuz they look down on other people's beliefs which are just as fantastic as their own and sometimes even less so. What I'm trying to say is religion, with a sincere heart, may be a good means to an end but can never be the end in itself.

Yes! That is exactly what I meant about the Orientals. I'm not the best at expression so I appreciate you getting that. The Orientals place emphasis on finding your own way. But even then, there's got to be some universal truths. There can't just be whatever each one finds because most times, they are at a conflict.

Ah. Scripture. I'm extremely wary of quoting scripture. Do you wanna take a shot at my question? The one about what the point of our salvation/optimization is.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by PastorAIO: 5:19pm On Mar 24, 2011
I'm so happy that I looked into this thread.

I believe that I've made my position clear (or unclear to such as Deepsight) several times on this forum about the relationship between the various religions and Truth.

I believe that there are certain images that have cropped up time and again fabric of religions. They crop up not only in religion but in folktales and other aspects of popular culture. Was it Jung who once said that Dreams are the Myths of an individual, and Myths are the Dreams of a people? Just as there are certain patterns and images that keep cropping up in our dreams (like the dreams of being naked in a public place, or of flying, or of running away from something but staying on the same spot), so there are patterns and images that keep cropping up in religions and mythologies all over the world. Perhaps these images exist independently in a kind of collective unconscious like Jung suggested.

However an aspect of the various religions that makes them undeniably different from each other is the manner in which the images are interpreted. Here we cannot deny the influence of Social engineering and politics in the development of religions. Religions are often used to control and shape societies and so are as variable as the intentions of the various social engineers.

I think we have to make a distinction between religion as a tool for social organisation and religion as a means of re-ligere-ing/reconciling/reconnecting man to his God.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by PastorAIO: 5:29pm On Mar 24, 2011
Dulcet7:




A human's true religious objective is to achieve maximum efficiency in all spheres of life (there is no religion in death).

Efficiency can only be maximized according to the manufacturer's standards, and this is where God comes in.

By the etymology of "re-ligion", it attempts to "bind back together" (establish 100% efficiency by design standards).

This process of "Unit testing" is the common object which can take various courses called religion. The object is same, but the objective is often lost in the excitement.

For every religion, one should be able to ask, 'Does this really increase my efficiency as a creation of God?' i.e. Am I 'helping' God do what he planned when he created me and everything else?

This is why I have little respect for so-called religious persons who have no respect for nature in itself, or for those who use the name of religion to deprive others of their lives and belongings.In either case, they are not only failing at their[b] inaugural objectives,[/b] they are destroying other Creations' efficiencies as well.

You made a good point about the Bible's clear message in its distinction. However, I still think religions involve channels of experience.

Our sole purpose is to maximize the efficiency of our lives' design. Jesus came to show us a tangible form and he gave himself up in the process because it was necessary and THAT was what maximised his own efficiency (he is totally respected across Eastern and Western religions), but I assure you there are some people who have not seen or heard this tangible form and yet they are somehow doing things right!

Since I've been on Nairaland I have seen anyone mirror my standpoint so precisely and yet say it so differently.  I especially like the term Inaugural objective.


For every religion, one should be able to ask, 'Does this really increase my efficiency as a creation of God?' i.e. Am I 'helping' God do what he planned when he created me and everything else?

It was this question that I asked on the Islam section in different terms.  I asked how the practice of the 5 pillars can bring anyone to the state of Al-Fitra.  Till today I have not received an answer.  If your religious practice does not bring you to that pure state then how can you claim to be practicing a pure religion. 

Dulcet7:

I also do not believe that all religions lead to the same place. However, neglecting human corruption and selfish desires, they all have the same objective: optimization (commonly called salvation).

Having an objective does not mean that the means employed will be justified in the end, except in a perfect world free of wickedness. So I agree that some religions carry out functions that detract rather than sustain the global objective of human salvation.[/b]

I like to place the emphasis on Practice. And sometimes our practice can be faulty and not lead to 'optimisation'.

Also when you say 'some religions carry out functions that detract rather than sustain the global objective' I am assuming that you are referring to religions as organisations, not in the ideology itself.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 7:14pm On Mar 24, 2011
vescucci:

Hi Dulcet. I have a feeling I have a lot to learn from you. Yeah, I kinda stopped posting here for a while cuz there's an egotistical epidemic in this section. If you don't hang out with people like JeSoul or yourself, you may lose your humility and common sense. So I'm selective now.

Hmmm. It seems you're God sent. About two years ago I finally had the courage to admit to myself the things I believed and the things I did not. Initially, I felt so liberated and I was excited. But afterwards were trying times for me. I wonder if I lost or gained in my new outlook. I don't feel that connection with God like I did before even though it was on a placebo. That's why I think religion is immaterial to one's relationship with God. But religion can also do a lot of harm. Because it is dogmatic and fatal to one's faculty of reasoning. Almost no religious argument makes any sense. Mostly there're based on a faulty premise or assumption. I totally get trying to know God on one's terms. I was conscious of this, that I might be too empirical about my spirituality. But when I see some people talking about their fantastic beliefs, I get a little pissed cuz they look down on other people's beliefs which are just as fantastic as their own and sometimes even less so. What I'm trying to say is religion, with a sincere heart, may be a good means to an end but can never be the end in itself.

Yes! That is exactly what I meant about the Orientals. I'm not the best at expression so I appreciate you getting that. The Orientals place emphasis on finding your own way. But even then, there's got to be some universal truths. There can't just be whatever each one finds because most times, they are at a conflict.

Ah. Scripture. I'm extremely wary of quoting scripture. Do you wanna take a shot at my question? The one about what the point of our salvation/optimization is.

Hello Vescucci:

I understand you fully. smiley Nowadays I try to stay away from some passionate threads here, too. Almost everything you said about religion and your personal experience has been soundly addressed by Pastor AIO's distinction below:

I think we have to make a distinction between religion as a tool for social organisation and religion as a means of re-ligere-ing/reconciling/reconnecting man to his God.
+1 I have to say this is just wonderful, the way he expressed it!

About quoting scripture, I was just backing up my claims about Jesus' teaching being undeniably different to the observers. smiley

Do you wanna take a shot at my question? The one about what the point of our salvation/optimization is.
I believe this is the same reason as the point of creation, because creation, optimization and expiry is one long and single continuum for each human experience. It will fall under the category I formerly referred to as inquiries into the nature of God and His secrets. Okay the question again:

Question: Some people say we're on earth to learn lessons, to love, to this and to that. But when we're done learning, what next? What's the use?
I deliberately skipped this at first, but if I must answer now I will skim the surface of my thoughts. . . think of a body of pathogenic viruses attacking a host. Their sole purpose of invading the host is to replicate the virus cells and force all the host cells to conform to it. These viruses will not stop until the host cells have all been changed. Now consider that from a positive angle. After we are "done learning", we infect others with it until there is none else to infect.

By my understanding, creation is an example of a manufacturing process, the manufacturer God created us as a supply for a demand which he created at the same time. I think the purpose of our creation (and this the need for the optimization) is to "play God" on His behalf at taking care of all nature: plants, animals, other humans, landscapes, seas, everything. We would never have needed optimization but along the line we all got irresponsible: all forms of sin and wickedness destructively and adversely affect yourself, a fellow man or another aspect of nature (as listed) directly or indirectly - think about it. Once a change in viewpoint has been established in you and you see yourself as caretaker of all nature, you have been "infected" and part of that mandate involves infecting others too. By the time everyone is infected (if that ever happens), everyone is a sound caretaker and the creation - optimization - expiry phase called life becomes entirely complete. I cannot conjecture what would happen at this point.

I hope this is sufficient, Vescucci smiley
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 7:19pm On Mar 24, 2011
Pastor AIO:

I'm so happy that I looked into this thread.

I believe that I've made my position clear (or unclear to such as Deepsight) several times on this forum about the relationship between the various religions and Truth.

I believe that there are certain images that have cropped up time and again fabric of religions. They crop up not only in religion but in folktales and other aspects of popular culture. Was it Jung who once said that Dreams are the Myths of an individual, and Myths are the Dreams of a people? Just as there are certain patterns and images that keep cropping up in our dreams (like the dreams of being unclothed in a public place, or of flying, or of running away from something but staying on the same spot), so there are patterns and images that keep cropping up in religions and mythologies all over the world. Perhaps these images exist independently in a kind of collective unconscious like Jung suggested.


You are welcome to the thread, Pastor AIO! I love reading your posts too (I found some a while ago. Appears you stopped posting actively too).

Did you miss this one? "The assurance of salvation"? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-575273.0.html

Gosh you have no idea how much I love this quote of yours
However an aspect of the various religions that makes them undeniably different from each other is the manner in which the images are interpreted. Here we cannot deny the influence of Social engineering and politics in the development of religions. Religions are often used to control and shape societies [size=14pt]and so are as variable as the intentions of the various social engineers[/size].

I think we have to make a distinction between religion as a tool for social organisation and religion as a means of re-ligere-ing/reconciling/reconnecting man to his God.
+1000 grin

God bless you, sir! smiley
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 7:32pm On Mar 24, 2011
Pastor AIO:

Since I've been on Nairaland I have seen anyone mirror my standpoint so precisely and yet say it so differently.  I especially like the term Inaugural objective.

It was this question that I asked on the Islam section in different terms.  I asked how the practice of the 5 pillars can bring anyone to the state of Al-Fitra.  Till today I have not received an answer.  If your religious practice does not bring you to that pure state then how can you claim to be practicing a pure religion. 

I like to place the emphasis on Practice.  And sometimes our practice can be faulty and not lead to 'optimisation'. 

Also when you say 'some religions carry out functions that detract rather than sustain the global objective' I am assuming that you are referring to religions as organisations, not in the ideology itself. 

1. Thanks Pastor AIO. When I stumbled upon and read your interview with Deep Sight on nairaland I thought almost the same thing to myself!

2. I recall I also talked about this once: the 5 pillars themselves cannot bring one to the state of Al-Fitra. They are symbolic guides on the way home!!
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-575273.0.html#msg7505010
Dulcet7: A Muslim might receive such an enlightenment spark while doing one of his 5 required pillars of faith and suddenly finding out the secret truth that may escape many other Muslims - those pillars are symbolic - and stumbling upon this symbolism he finds a spark of salvation that leads him on a brand new journey - still in Islam - but now on the way to assured salvation.

3. This is also correct. Our practice can be faulty and sometimes might NOT lead to optimization. Very correct! This may be attributed to corruption and influences directing the religious body in which one practices, or else allowances tolerated within the religion which make the person comfortable with the very contrivances they are meant to get rid of. Practice is key, but without any practice in the first place, optimization will never occur!

4. Yes, I do not refer to the ideology. I believe all religious ideologies in their pure form* are beneficial. The human element tends to corrupt this spiritual innocence because humans love indulging in their own contrived gimmicks. The religious institution, especially when spearheaded by people with intentions to enforce some form of societal change; might thus detract from the global objective of true religion.

* I have some minor reservations about my view on "pure forms" of religion. Maybe another time. . .
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by dare2think: 7:37pm On Mar 24, 2011
By far the most sensible thread on the religious section,

I must admit Dulcet7, your post has just confirmed to me that i am not alone in the quest for more understanding in the aspect of religion. I am a very sound critique of the theological institutions present in the world as they seem to contradict the very purpose of thier Goals. I am just coming to terms that i might have some agnostic Tendencies but i still believe in the teachings of Jesus. Would i have believed in his teachings if i were born in Saudi Arabia? I don't know, this is what confuses me the most. A certain religion can not have a claim of omni-presence as religion is largely based on the geographical location of the practitioner. It is a conflicting logic to an "idea" that a certain prophet has come on behalf of all Humanity. How many bhuddists are in africa?

@ sweetnecta
 you talk about the prophet being the last messenger of the undiluted truth to the world. I know very little about islam and it's doctrines but lets say as i go home tonight something horrible happens to me and i happen to pass away, am i supposed to to be confined to dine with satan even having little knowledge about the "undiluted truth". Is it going to be my fault.

@vescussi

i like the mountain analogy, but i feel since human biengs are in charge of religion and humans are known for not being perfect, i feel religion has been diluted and used for several means that the main objective is no longer clear. Yet, every religious leader is still diluting and interpreting their own versions ofthe doctrines to us.Afterall, how many of us has God spoken to?
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by JeSoul(f): 9:10pm On Mar 24, 2011
Ah! Nice contributions. Oga Dulcet, permission to return tomorrow. I'm in a political state of mind today and some people are looking for my trouble over in the Foreign Affairs section cheesy

Hallo Vesc smiley
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 7:40am On Mar 25, 2011
Dare2Think: Hello and welcome to the thread! smiley

Jesoul: It's alright, Jessy. I'll look forward to that. . . Cheers!
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by vescucci(m): 10:42am On Mar 25, 2011
Hi, Dulcet. Your explanations were helpful but I meant what's the point after we die? I agree totally that we ought to love our neighbour and try to impact them positively and hope for a domino effect. But when we die, what then? You said that you couldn't conjecture further though. Thank you very much still.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Sweetnecta: 12:53pm On Mar 25, 2011
@dare2think; [Quote]@ sweetnecta
you talk about the prophet being the last messenger of the undiluted truth to the world. I know very little about islam and it's doctrines but lets say as i go home tonight something horrible happens to me and i happen to pass away, am i supposed to to be confined to dine with satan even having little knowledge about the "undiluted truth". Is it going to be my fault.[/Quote]Lets assume that just before you read my post, you never heard about Muhammad [as], Islam or Allah. You should at that time be what we call a Hanifan; a person who negates all form of worship that may make things or creations [man, etc] to be object of due worship. You are to ponder about nature and natural thing, thinking about Who makes them this orderly in their complexity, as they are no intelligent enough to come into being by themselves or organize themselves so perfectly.

However from the time you read my post, your priority should have changed from that very moment when you heard about Muhammad [as]. That should have been enough for you to switch gear to begin to ponder about who this man Muhammad [as] and what is his role in the lives of man, today.

A person who switched gear from that moment, throwing away every idolatry thoughts, if he dies before discovering who Muhammad is, he at least became a Hanifan. If not a full muslim from that point, he is no more a disbeliever for sure. On the day of the great meeting, he will be tested to see if he would have followed the messenger or not if he had known about him [as] om earth. if he passes his test, he will be admitted to Paradise. if he fails his test, he will be herded to hellfire because if he knew about the messenger while on earth he would have refused to follow him.

God says that He will not unjust to His creatures; man, jinn.

Ever person who reached the age of puberty will made to grow to the height of Adam and the age of Isa bin Maryam [as to both of them], to dwell in Paradise in peace and contentment or to dwell in Hellfire in unending punishment, if Allah The Almighty Wills it so, alone.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 1:26pm On Mar 25, 2011
sweetnecta:
A person who switched gear from that moment, throwing away every idolatry thoughts, if he dies before discovering who Muhammad is, he at least became a Hanifan. If not a full muslim from that point, he is no more a disbeliever for sure. On the day of the great meeting, he will be tested to see if he would have followed the messenger or not if he had known about him [as] om earth. if he passes his test, he will be admitted to Paradise. if he fails his test, he will be herded to hellfire because if he knew about the messenger while on earth he would have refused to follow him.
Hi Sweetnecta

I have never heard of that of which you speak, above. I had to do some background checks and yet I turned up with nothing. e.g.

http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/beliefs/afterlife.htm

Can you please provide links or verses from the Koran to backup your post? Thanks.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Sweetnecta: 1:33pm On Mar 25, 2011
@Dulcet17; [Quote]Sweetnecta good morning to you (I assume you are in Nigeria). Please note that I didnt say a Sufi mystic represents all Muslims, just like the Christian mystic does not represent all Christians.

Rather, the mystics of whatsoever pedigree from Eastern faiths to Western faiths all agree that religion is a cloak, a mask, a covering, a surface.

Im not a mystic but I agree, and this thread is asking: are they correct? If so, then why all the inter-religious conflict?

With due respect to your faith, I do not believe in the idea of a "last prophet", which tends to human worship and blind dogma because each prophet's way of life often generates a new religion or a new perspective on an old one. So if this new viewpoint is taken in isolation of all precedence and current exposure to wholesome truth, trouble will brew.[/Quote]You will have to believe that Jesus son of Mary was the last prophets among the children of Israel, Joseph being the first since Jacob was Israel himself. Was there a prophet from the children of Israel after Jesus? Of course not. This is also the case with Muhammad being the last of all the chains of prophets which began with the first man, Adam [as] and ending in truth with Muhammad [AS]. Has there been a prophet after him? Of course not. We can call the likes of Mormon's Joseph Smith a prophet in the same category because how many times shall the Bible be re-revealed? This is similar to those people call God, even if they are human prophet [Jesus in this case when he is called god the son] or Angel [Gabriel in this case when he is called the holy spirit] or even ordinary men who call themselves prophets [Church pastors in this case who mislabel themselves] or Cult leaders [Jim Jones, David Kuresh were called Gods by their followers. Even The Chicago based Nation of Islam called "Faraid" God].
By the way all real prophets, from Adam to Muhammad [AS] are brothers in their prophetic mission. They had a singular object from God Almighty Who sent them that they should proclaim His Oneness and the Only Deity Worthy of Worship. Allah says no messenger from Him will say to anyone that they should worship him instead of God Almighty Alone, The Sustainer, The Cherisher of all.




[Quote]As long as there is wickedness in the world, God will keep on raising prophets and teachers among men until love snuffs the life out of wickedness to fellow man and nature.

For all the true prophets who have ever been, there is something to learn from each of them. They are shining lights in the dead of the night.

They are there so that you wont make any mistakes they made, if they did, and so you can finish whatever good they started among men.[/Quote]Are prophets teachers? If so, all Christians should pay attention to part of job description of Prophet. It is human prophet who taught his community, and not voiceless holy spirit, especially when he was to hear and speak to human being. Ghost cant speak unless he manifests himself, just like how he spoke to Mary, he being in form of a man.
Could you tell me who was the prophet after Muhammad [as] and who is a prophet that you know walking on earth today? What does he bring from God Almighty and what book is his book?

We have to accept that a street like one mile away was only good to lead you when you were there sometimes10 or 20 minutes ago. That is similar to what a prophet of a past era is.

Moses was the light of 50 blocks ago. Jesus was the light of 20 blocks ago. Muhammad is the light of the longest block that you live in and it is the block that extends to the city limit. To say that the dimmed lights of 50 and 20 blocks in the past is as brilliant as the light of the lamp that you under its rays right now is not telling the truth, especially if they are made by the same Maker.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by Dulcet7(m): 2:45pm On Mar 25, 2011
Sweetnecta:
Moses was the light of 50 blocks ago. Jesus was the light of 20 blocks ago. Muhammad is the light of the longest block that you live in and it is the block that extends to the city limit. To say that the dimmed lights of 50 and 20 blocks in the past is as brilliant as the light of the lamp that you under its rays right now is not telling the truth, especially if they are made by the same Maker.

Thanks for your submission Sweetnecta but I beg to disagree. I don't believe the light of a prophet is diminished by time as the era in which he lives/lived passes by. Prophets are manifested for a time/season but they are forever relevant to learn from - and  throughout the ages.

As for your views on the "voiceless" (as you say) Holy Ghost, I think I will not like to touch that sensitive matter.

Sweetnecta: Has there been a prophet after him? Of course not.
Sweetnecta: Could you tell me who was the prophet after Muhammad [as] and who is a prophet that you know walking on earth today? What does he bring from God Almighty and what book is his book?
Maybe we should start by asking: what qualifies a prophet? Who is a prophet? Does he have to have written, directed or inspired a book in order to be called a prophet?
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:27pm On Mar 25, 2011
Pastor AIO:


I believe that I've made my position clear (or unclear to such as Deepsight) several times on this forum about the relationship between the various religions and Truth.

I made it abundantly clear that the divergence was simply on matters of doctrine. In that regard i believe that in that thread vescucci provided a definition of the word "doctrine" the subtle nuance of which seems to have escaped you. I more than appreciate your viewpoint on the common truths inherent in virtually all religions, the common fabric, and were you not wilfully stubborn you would have seen a zillion places where i stated exactly that. For Pete's sake i have spent too much energy on this forum arguing the common salvation and freedom of all men of good conscience, for you to deliberately misunderstand me so extensively. You are all too aware of the numerous times i have pointed these out to Noetic, Davidylan, etc. Thus the common principles are not in doubt, Pastor, can i say that for the zillionth time?

What is defintely in doubt, a falsity that you cannot export in the least, is this - the religions do exhibit starkly dissimlar doctrinal bents in terms of their dogma: to wit - Islam is vehemently opposed to a dogma such as teh trinity: the central idea of "redemptive christianity by the death on the cross" is totally alien to Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism etc.

These dogmas, empty and man-created BS, in my view, are what i assert to you to be indisputable hallmarks of differences in doctrine. This cannot be nuclear physics, Pastor.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:39pm On Mar 25, 2011
I reproduce below in blue the post in which i summed up my view to you -

@ Pastor –

Many of the things that you put forward are quite amusing. “Sounds esoteric and so likely to be different on a superficial level. . .” I must have entirely failed in interacting with you or conveying my ideas or mind . . .and my failure is resounding.

Let’s have a look at it again: and this only for the objective reader.

Perhaps it is apposite before proceeding to set out to you the basic premise I have laboured to convey: and I say it again for the millionth time: all religions do preach love and detachment from worldly things – nevertheless the specific doctrines of major religions show sharp differences such that any claim that such religions are markedly similar in doctrine must perforce fail.

In case you have forgotten: the initial remark from Mad Max which triggered this discussion was that all religions are staggeringly similar in terms of thought, belief and doctrine.

I firmly disagree with that; and I still do.

The fact remains, just as I have said a zillion times already – the broad similarity in terms of the teaching of love and detachment from the world (which is all that you have pointed out by the way) is not sufficient to support the claims that Mad Max made.

In this regard I did set out a number of charts which you most cavalierly dismissed as inapplicable. Those charts very succinctly set out the core worldviews of each religion and I am aware that you were eager to dismiss the chart only on account of that which it made very painfully obvious; the significant divergences in THOUGHT AND BELIEF between religions.

Now revert to the fact that Mad Max’s opening statement talked about thoughts, beliefs and doctrines!

Here we go – what are the core beliefs of Christianity?

1. That God is supreme and must be worshipped in spirit and truth

2. That God is a Trinity

3. That Jesus is God and part of that Trinity

4. That original Adamic sin introduced death and suffering to Mankind

5. That Jesus’ death on the cross was a sacrifice to deliver remission for sins

6. That Jesus’ resurrection was conquest of death for mankind

7. That belief in Jesus’ saving sacrifice is required to attain salvation

8. That the saved Christian must live in tandem with Jesus’ teachings on love

OF ALL OF THE EIGHT CORE DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY WHICH I HAVE OUTLINED ABOVE, ONLY NO. 8 IS A COMMON DENOMINATOR WITH BUDDHISM AND MANY OTHER RELIGIONS.

I state to you that this is absolutely insufficient to deduce that the religions are markedly similar; for the first seven core doctrines as you well know are VERY VERY VERY central to Christian thought and belief; AND THEY DO NOT FEATURE AT ALL IN BUDDHISM.

Now I talked about the thrust of the Four Noble Truths.

Here are the Four Noble Truths again –

1. The Nature of Suffering (or Dukkha):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[3][4]

2. Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[3][4]

3. Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):
"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[3][4]

4. The Path (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:
"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."[5][6]


No logical person can look at the foregoing and insist that these truths are not centrally about suffering and escape from suffering. And not conceptually about the non-contingent love of Christian doctrine.

What I overwhelmingly need to emphasize is the fact that the entire concept and thrust of the Four Noble Truth and indeed the generality of Buddhist thought derives from the philosophy of avoiding, or growing past suffering. Suffering is the central idea which these truths strive against; and it is without doubt that the central plank upon which the cessation of suffering is based is the cessation of craving.

Everything within the Four Noble Truths and any knowledgeable enunciation of those truths points ineluctably to this. Indeed this is the very soul of those truths – they proceed from the point of view of suffering, and then devolve onto the source of suffering: which is identified as craving. Ultimately they wind up prescribing a death to craving as the solution; and it is instructive that the ultimate state for the Buddhist – Nirvana – is a state wherein the ego is virtually removed. Self as known to man, barely exists anymore.

Pastor – you cannot but agree, unless wilfully stubborn, that all of this in concept, origination, thrust and delivery is markedly different from Christian thought and doctrine: for Christian doctrine proceeds from the point of view of a fallen nature of man; which must be remedied by a divine sacrifice; which sacrifice forms the central basis and plank for Christian salvation.

I think it is important that I add that the Noble Truths as I have explained above do not centre around a non-contingent teaching of love. They are not built up from an imperative of love: they are built up from an imperative of suffering and elimination of suffering. It is true that ethical behaviour is therein prescribed: and there is no doubt that ethical behaviour will lead to a reduction of communal suffering: and this is and remains the thrust of the Four Noble Truths and Buddhist philosophy.

THIS IS THE REASON I MADE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU: THOSE TRUTHS DERIVE FROM THE CONCEPT OF SUFFERING AND ARE CONCEPTUALLY DIFFERENT FROM CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND BELIEF WHICH ARE CENTRED AROUND SACRIFICIAL REMISSION OF SINS AND NON-CONTINGENT LOVE!


Now taking apart the Noble Eight Fold Path, we can see the further construct that I try to convey to you: namely that the thrust of these truths centres about suffering and seeks to ameliorate these through the path of moderation through ethics –

[Souced: Wiki] - The Noble Eightfold Path is sometimes divided into three basic divisions, as follows: Wisdom (Sanskrit: prajñ ā, Pāli: paññā), Ethical conduct (Sanskrit: śīla, Pāli: sīla) and Concentration (Sanskrit and Pāli: samādhi)



All of these are suggestive of a meditative approach to ameliorating the problem of individual and communal suffering.

1. Moral law of karma: Every action (by way of body, speech, and mind) will have karmic results (a.k.a. reaction). Wholesome and unwholesome actions will produce results and effects that correspond with the nature of that action. It is the right view about the moral process of the world.

2. The three characteristics: everything that arises will cease (impermanence). Mental and body phenomena are impermanent, source of suffering and not-self.

3. Suffering: Birth, aging, sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, distress, and despair are suffering. Not being able to obtain what one wants is also suffering. The arising of craving is the proximate cause of the arising of suffering and the cessation of craving is the proximate cause of the cessation of the suffering. The quality of ignorance is the root cause of the arising of suffering, and the elimination of this quality is the root cause of the cessation of suffering. The way leading to the cessation of suffering is the noble eightfold path.[22] This type of right view is explained in terms of Four Noble Truths.


Everything above emphatically proves the point I tried to make regarding the FOCUS of the Four Noble Truths as SUFFERING AND THE AVOIDANCE THEREOF: which thrust is divergent from the core of Christian Doctrine which in many degrees actually embraces suffering in pursuit of salvation – AND AT ALL EVENTS is motivated by salvation based on the sacrifice of Christ – which is a doctrine you will not dare to equate with Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths!

In all of this let me remind you that it will not be useful if you inundate me with details of the positive and agreeable results of all religious lines of thought – including such as are applicable to Christianity and Buddhism: that is a common denominator which is not at issue, thanks.


https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-474866.32.html#msg6377887
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:48pm On Mar 25, 2011
We once discussed the possible similarities between Christian tradition and that of a particular African Religious Tradition.

I quote you -

"I don't think that it is right or fair on either tradition to be mixing and conflating them."

Your words, not mine.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-505605.0.html#msg6685078
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by DeepSight(m): 7:52pm On Mar 25, 2011
Dulcet7:


So here is the question: What do you think about the Mystics' (and Shopkeeper's) assertion? Is religion truly various surfaces of the same object?

Religion is a variegated quest for truth. However, given that it is colored by human tradition, culture, politics, warfare, and even economic considerations, Religion, and religious doctrines are diversified, notwithstanding that common themes do permeate the lot.

Religion, however, is to be distinguished from TRUTH.

Truth is constant.

Religion is not.
Re: The Jerusalem Shopkeeper's Assertion: What Really (matters In) Religion. by JeSoul(f): 8:02pm On Mar 25, 2011
Dulcet7:

there are uneducated people: e.g. cloth-sellers and house-painters who use a crude form of this theorem when cutting cloth or estimating the slant the ladder must have against the wall. They have never heard of Pythagoras. They dont even know the theorem exists, and they dont know that they dont know. The painter might not even work with the measured distances, he has an accurate gut feeling of the ratios.

The bottom line is that for each of the three categories they have applied the theorem to better themselves at what they do.

Our sole purpose is to maximize the efficiency of our lives' design. Jesus came to show us a tangible form and he gave himself up in the process because it was necessary and THAT was what maximised his own efficiency (he is totally respected across Eastern and Western religions), but I assure you there are some people who have not seen or heard this tangible form and yet they are somehow doing things right!
 Ha! I like this. Its along the same tune I posted in Mantraa's "gate to heaven" thread. There are people who have "accepted Christ" without 'consciously' doing so and are "doing the will of the father" without having necessarily been "taught" to do so. 

On to the first bit of your response:
Dulcet7:

Thanks for your reasoned response, Jessy.

I believe religions are surfaces of the same object, but that object is not God, at least not directly.

A human's true religious objective is to achieve maximum efficiency in all spheres of life (there is no religion in death).

Efficiency can only be maximized according to the manufacturer's standards, and this is where God comes in.

By the etymology of "re-ligion", it attempts to "bind back together" (establish 100% efficiency by design standards).

This process of "Unit testing" is the common object which can take various courses called religion. The object is same, but the objective is often lost in the excitement.

For every religion, one should be able to ask, 'Does this really increase my efficiency as a creation of God?' i.e. Am I 'helping' God do what he planned when he created me and everything else?

This is why I have little respect for so-called religious persons who have no respect for nature in itself, or for those who use the name of religion to deprive others of their lives and belongings.In either case, they are not only failing at their inaugural objectives, they are destroying other Creations' efficiencies as well.

You made a good point about the Bible's clear message in its distinction. However, I still think religions involve channels of experience.
  I appreciate PastorAIO's attempt to square out what exactly we mean by religion. Religion is a loaded word and as I've noticed in this section can connote diverse ideas as there are people. To avoid the sin of verbosity, I'll try to be terse - So are you in essence opining that [b]"religions are scratching the surface of the same object - and - this object is the way to get (reconcile/reconnect/bind back etc) to God - and not God himself"?[/b]and that the fact these other religions do not recognize the central theme of sin and redemption in christianity is not necessarily problematic, but that they are applying "Pythagoras'" theory anyways? Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Deepsight's appearance has re-emphasized my position -

Deep Sight:
the religions do exhibit starkly dissimlar doctrinal bents in terms of their dogma: to wit - Islam is vehemently opposed to a dogma such as teh trinity: the central idea of "redemptive christianity by the death on the cross" is totally alien to Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism etc.


 As Deepsight noted, while the common denominator may be "connecting with the Maker", the modus operandi on how to go about this (thanks to DS again for that nice long detailed post) are so starkly different one has to wonder . . . and I'm still wondering.

(1) (2) (3) (Reply)

Funny Church Signs / The Awful Truth! / Iyonu Olorun Logajulo Oun Sini Ejawa

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 246
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.