Christianity and The Truth

[CatsAndDogs]

I believe that the Devi Mahatmayam is much more true than the Bible or the Church.

It’s perfectly true in that it is a good description of the way the universe looks to one who would rather be rid of the universe than one who would learn from the universe.

Is it more “true” because it is more generic? It generally says nothing other than, “You’re not special. All things are deluded by the goddess of illusion, not only you. All your attachments keep you and all other beings from the liberation into the bliss of nothingness.”

To have been badly hurt and want the freedom of oblivion, or to want to find power over those with riches by salving them with the soothing blamelessness of oblivion, is yet another example of taking a small piece of “natural law” and expanding it into a warped tool for escape or advantage.

Why do you think the (this?) “Devi” is more true than a book you don’t understand (because you don’t have it explained by the only source who can) or a Tradition (the Church) you WON’T understand because of the prejudice that it can’t be what it says it is because no one can say what it says?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This text isn’t “anti-Mahamaya” or anti reality, on the contrary it is calling Mahamaya the Highest God:

“She creates this entire universe, both moving and unmoving. It is she who, when propitious, becomes a boon-giver to human beings for their final liberation. She is the supreme knowledge, the cause of final liberation, and eternal; she is the cause of the bondage of transmigration and the sovereign over all lords.”

I don’t think it is saying that the “final liberation” is “nothingness” In fact, my understanding is that final liberation is an eternal relationship with God. I don’t see how this is all that different that what Christianity teaches.

Your “final liberation” is an utter union with that which is ABOVE God (at least if you consider the Mahamaya the “highest god”).

We believe that will will be WITH God, as our own person, once our time in this temporal creation is done.

You are “liberated” from “the illusion” of reality. We are made aware of ALL of reality, and not freed from it.

 

[Namesake]

Your “final liberation” is an utter union with that which is ABOVE God (at least if you consider the Mahamaya the “highest god”).

We believe that will will be WITH God, as our own person, once our time in this temporal creation is done.

You are “liberated” from “the illusion” of reality. We are made aware of ALL of reality, and not freed from it.

Respectfully, you lack understanding. Your comments are shallow and you might learn if you would read more and post less for a while.

 

[Neil_LA]

I’m not following what you are saying…

The freedom of oblivion?

I don’t recall saying anything about that. I just assume you haven’t read my responce to your last statement.

Warped tool for escape or advantage?

What on EARTH are you talking about?

Why do you think the (this?) “Devi” is more true than a book you don’t understand (because you don’t have it explained by the only source who can) or a Tradition (the Church) you WON’T understand because of the prejudice that it can’t be what it says it is because no one can say what it says?

This statement doesn’t make one iota of sense!!! I’m not anti-tradition…all scriptures should be learned from a qualified teacher. Again… MY POINT IS: The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on Absolute Truth.

It’s perfectly true in that it is a good description of the way the universe looks to one who would rather be rid of the universe than one who would learn from the universe.

Again, I don’t see where the text says anything at all close to this. It seems to me that you are interprating a book you don’t understand.

Is it more “true” because it is more generic? It generally says nothing other than, “You’re not special. All things are deluded by the goddess of illusion, not only you. All your attachments keep you and all other beings from the liberation into the bliss of nothingness.”

Its very clear that your pre-concieved ideas aren’t permiting you to see what the text is actually saying!! I don’t see how you come to these conclusions!!

To have been badly hurt and want the freedom of oblivion, or to want to find power over those with riches by salving them with the soothing blamelessness of oblivion, is yet another example of taking a small piece of “natural law” and expanding it into a warped tool for escape or advantage.

One more time, I don’t see how you came to this conclusion from the text quoted. Please clarify…

 

[Neil_LA]

Your “final liberation” is an utter union with that which is ABOVE God

How can anyfhing be “ABOVE God?!?!?!?!”

This statement shows a complete and utter lack of belief in and faith in God.

 

[Neil_LA]

.
You are “liberated” from “the illusion” of reality. We are made aware of ALL of reality, and not freed from it.

Excuse me…Did you even bother to READ what I posted? Please refer to my discussion about nirvana above. Thank you!

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I believe you’re confusing the Hindu concept of “moksa” with the Buddhist idea of “nirvana.” (Nirvana isn’t a Hindu term, actually)

“Nirvana” means “extinction,” but it isn’t “nothingness.” “Nothingness” in Buddhism isn’t “absence” it is “completeness.” “Extintion” is the ending of all that is selfish, egotistical and, dare I say, “sinful.”

Here’s the definition from “The Collected Works of Shinran; Volume II” (Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha Shin Translation Series, Kyoto 1997)

“Supreme Nirvana” (Jp: mujo-nehan) Nirvana is the goal of Buddhist life, where false life is annihilated, never to emerge again,
and a new being of true compassion and true wisdom, concerned with the welfare of all beings is born. Supreme nirvana is contrasted with nirvana limited to personal emancipation.

Doesn’t sound like “finding nothing in reality.” To me it sounds more like being more grounded it true and ultimate reality than we otherwise are.

Here is a quote from Shinran’s “Notes on Essentials of Faith Alone”

“Nirvana is called extinction of passions, the uncreated, peaceful happiness, eternal bliss, true reality, dharma-body, dharma-nature, suchness, oneness, and Buddha-nature.”

Again, this doesn’t sound like “nothingness” or “emptiness” or “detachment-from-reality.” If anything it sound like a state that is connected with Ultimate Reality.

This sounds very similar to the teachings of Jesus, if you ask me.

I suggest that you do your homework before jumping to conclusions about things.

Those cultures where these ideas you propose (above) see the ultimate “bliss” as having in them no component of “physicality” whatsoever.

The idea is to “escape” the pains and pleasures of being a “person”, and to be transformed into something which is not a person, but a part of “the impersonal godhead”.

Does personality disappear (into the “one”) in your religion?

The difference between what you propose and the truth (how’s THAT for arrogance! ) is in the final disposition of the person-ness of that which you call you and I call me.

Now, if I’m wrong about your final disposition of person-ness, then we may indeed be describing the same thing in different ways.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Respectfully, you lack understanding. Your comments are shallow and you might learn if you would read more and post less for a while.

I do indeed lack some understanding. But I learn best from those with knowledge, and those I talk to seem to know what they know, and are willing to inform me.

I think I’ll let them do that!

I ask questions. Others give answers. That IS the way it’s supposed to work, no?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Why do you think the (this?) “Devi” is more true than a book you don’t understand (because you don’t have it explained by the only source who can) or a Tradition (the Church) you WON’T understand because of the prejudice that it can’t be what it says it is because no one can say what it says?

This statement doesn’t make one iota of sense!!! I’m not anti-tradition…all scriptures should be learned from a qualified teacher. Again… MY POINT IS: The Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on Absolute Truth.

That is true, and it doesn’t claim that it does. It only claims that it has the most full deposit of truth given by God, and that what it claims is true is actually true.

That others may have some measure of truth is a given.

You simply reject the idea that God would give only some the knowledge of His absolute truth, to be spread via “history” in such a way as to allow mankind to learn where those who have had only natural law to work with need to alter their beliefs.

That is perfectly sensible, and understandable, and rational. There is no rational reason to believe that God has worked as He has, other than by a leap of faith.

The test is where the most full measure of God’s truth resides, judged objectively.

If a group of people obeys SOME of the truths of God in a near-perfect way, they will always appear to possess “more of God’s deposit of faith” than those who actually DO possess the fullness of the deposit of faith and obey only a tiny part of it.

But, God will not be thwarted, and His truths will come out as such, and the longer we take to see that the fullness of God’s truth is indeed in place in mankind’s possession, and that that deposit is to be ACTED FROM, the longer we’ll take to learn what we’ve been created to learn so as to be with God in our fullness.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
It’s perfectly true in that it is a good description of the way the universe looks to one who would rather be rid of the universe than one who would learn from the universe.

Again, I don’t see where the text says anything at all close to this. It seems to me that you are interprating a book you don’t understand.

Quote:
Is it more “true” because it is more generic? It generally says nothing other than, “You’re not special. All things are deluded by the goddess of illusion, not only you. All your attachments keep you and all other beings from the liberation into the bliss of nothingness.”

Its very clear that your pre-concieved ideas aren’t permiting you to see what the text is actually saying!! I don’t see how you come to these conclusions!!

Quote:
To have been badly hurt and want the freedom of oblivion, or to want to find power over those with riches by salving them with the soothing blamelessness of oblivion, is yet another example of taking a small piece of “natural law” and expanding it into a warped tool for escape or advantage.

One more time, I don’t see how you came to this conclusion from the text quoted. Please clarify…

You are most likely quite right in that I don’t have a particularly good grasp on the “vedantic” (is it?) theology, if theology is the right word (cosmology might be better?).

I’m rather guilty of the same nonsense that non-Catholics hit me with in having perverse impressions of what it is Catholics believe! I R a naught boy! Please forgive my considerable lack of sense at times.

I suppose what I’d really like to find out about, as I do actually believe that the highly systemized brands of spirituality of “the east” do in fact carry an amazing amount of truth derived nearly completely (but not completely) from natural law, is the “destination of the person”.

Does “the east” admit the possibility of the incarnation of God Himself?

Does “the east” admit the POSSIBILITY that a very small and geographically isolated group of people COULD have been directly “revealed to” as an example and semination for the whole of mankind to learn those things of God which are only discoverable by direct revelation?

I’m more interested in dialogue than debate, or “fighting”, as I can easily see how the beliefs of “the east” are much more easily believeable than those of “the arrogant west”.

“The east” is very unhappy with anyone claiming any “special knowledge” about God. That is perfectly reasonable on a principled basis, as certainly God wouldn’t be so “un-democratic”, but it is practically absurd because of the way that knowledge IS diseminated within humanity and the un-democratic distribution of “gifts” (intelligence/resources/etc) among the individuals of humanity.

 

[Neil_LA]

Those cultures where these ideas you propose (above) see the ultimate “bliss” as having in them no component of “physicality” whatsoever.

The idea is to “escape” the pains and pleasures of being a “person”, and to be transformed into something which is not a person, but a part of “the impersonal godhead”.

Does personality disappear (into the “one”) in your religion?

The difference between what you propose and the truth (how’s THAT for arrogance! ) is in the final disposition of the person-ness of that which you call you and I call me.

Now, if I’m wrong about your final disposition of person-ness, then we may indeed be describing the same thing in different ways.

Ok…you obviously have had a little exposure to either Advaita-Vedanta or a western scholarly reading of Buddhism without actual practice experience.

Advaita Vedanta seems to be talking about a “formless” aspect of God. This formless aspect of God is actually the unlimited radiance that emanates from God’s personal body which is composed of unlimited truth, consciousness and bliss. God is “sat chit ananda vigraha” the form of truth, consciousness and bliss. For those devoted to the formless-form of God, one attains this unlimited radiance.

To quote from “The Divine Vision of Radha Krishn” by HD Swami Prakashanand Saraswati (Jadadguru Kripalu Parishat, Austin 1995)

“All the religions and saints say, ‘You have to love God and leave worldly attachments.’ This is called devotion or bhakti, and this has to be done by everyone desiring God realization irrespective of his faith, religion or belief. The differences are only in the concept of God in various religions of the world because they deal with only with one form of God…

“God is only one for all the souls of this universe. He has many forms and names, He is omnipresent. Those who lovingly surrender to the impersonal (nirakar) form of God, after God realization experience a form of ‘unidentified, unlimited, joyous peacefulness’ in their heart. Such unidentified bliss is called brahmanand. Those who lovingly adore a personal form of God with a desire to be blissful and see His glory, after God realization, perceive and enjoy the ‘Blissful Divine Happiness’ in the Divine abode of their adored form of God. Such a Divine bliss is called bhagwadanand or the Blissfulness of sandhini power (almighty form of God). Those who lovingly adore the personal form of God as Radha Krishn, desiring to only to receive Their love and to serve Them, after God realization, perceive and enjoy the ‘loving sweetness of Radha Krishn love.’ They also enjoy Their loving association Divine Vrindavan (God’s abode of bliss). This is Supreme Divine Bliss and is called premanand. It is related to ahladini power (the Divine Love form of God).

“The formless brahm, the almighty bhagwan, and the loving form of God premavatar, are all one, yet there are blissful qualitative differences in Them. The simultaneous existence of the mono-dualistic state of God is absolutely beyond the comprehension of human intellect because it is the work of the miraculous work of yogamaya (Mahamaya), the personal supreme power of God.”

Thus you can see that Hinduism is not about “escaping the pains and pleasures of being a person” but God realization is the true expression of what “person-hood” is - To love and serve God in an intimate and blissful relationship with Him as your Divine beloved.

Again seem similar to what Jesus talked about.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Ok…you obviously have had a little exposure to either Advaita-Vedanta or a western scholarly reading of Buddhism without actual practice experience.

Advaita Vedanta seems to be talking about a “formless” aspect of God. This formless aspect of God is actually the unlimited radiance that emanates from God’s personal body which is composed of unlimited truth, consciousness and bliss. God is “sat chit ananda vigraha” the form of truth, consciousness and bliss. For those devoted to the formless-form of God, one attains this unlimited radiance.

To quote from “The Divine Vision of Radha Krishn” by HD Swami Prakashanand Saraswati (Jadadguru Kripalu Parishat, Austin 1995)

“All the religions and saints say, ‘You have to love God and leave worldly attachments.’ This is called devotion or bhakti, and this has to be done by everyone desiring God realization irrespective of his faith, religion or belief. The differences are only in the concept of God in various religions of the world because they deal with only with one form of God…

“God is only one for all the souls of this universe. He has many forms and names, He is omnipresent. Those who lovingly surrender to the impersonal (nirakar) form of God, after God realization experience a form of ‘unidentified, unlimited, joyous peacefulness’ in their heart. Such unidentified bliss is called brahmanand. Those who lovingly adore a personal form of God with a desire to be blissful and see His glory, after God realization, perceive and enjoy the ‘Blissful Divine Happiness’ in the Divine abode of their adored form of God. Such a Divine bliss is called bhagwadanand or the Blissfulness of sandhini power (almighty form of God). Those who lovingly adore the personal form of God as Radha Krishn, desiring to only to receive Their love and to serve Them, after God realization, perceive and enjoy the ‘loving sweetness of Radha Krishn love.’ They also enjoy Their loving association Divine Vrindavan (God’s abode of bliss). This is Supreme Divine Bliss and is called premanand. It is related to ahladini power (the Divine Love form of God).

“The formless brahm, the almighty bhagwan, and the loving form of God premavatar, are all one, yet there are blissful qualitative differences in Them. The simultaneous existence of the mono-dualistic state of God is absolutely beyond the comprehension of human intellect because it is the work of the miraculous work of yogamaya (Mahamaya), the personal supreme power of God.”

Thus you can see that Hinduism is not about “escaping the pains and pleasures of being a person” but God realization is the true expression of what “person-hood” is - To love and serve God in an intimate and blissful relationship with Him as your Divine beloved.

Again seem similar to what Jesus talked about.

What you’ve described is a relativistic sycretistic version of several religions. According to the above, it’s possible for human persons to differ in their “personal destinations” from other person based on their “habits” formed while alive (not yet dead).

Now, while I also believe that there are multiple “personal destinations” of the human person post-death, I limit the number of those destinations to TWO (with a pre-final stage for the “good” one being purgatory).

I suppose it’s possible that the “fine differences” between individual experience within purgatory-heaven and within hell COULD be construed as “different destinations chosen in the particulars by the actions of the person while non-dead”, the “multiple personal destinations” sounds like either a concession to the opinions of varied cultures which a “conglomerate culture” is trying not to offend (thus the syncretism), or a hyper-intellectualising (racing conjecture) of the “natural law” premise that “individuals get individual treatment”, which is “uncorrected” by direct revelation.

My belief is that “the east”, which has always had a “habit” of syncretic appeasement of sub-cultures (a synthecization in accomodation of differences), has created a weed-like growth of conjecture with no “governor”, which could ONLY be governed by an authoritative pronouncement of absolute truth, otherwise known as direct revelation.

The ideas you’ve presented above certainly make some people, most particularly WESTERNERS (those from nominally Christian regions), FEEL like those ideas accord with Christian principles, while in fact are only an accreted appeasement to draw in those whom that “coincidence” makes feel more comfortable.

I dare say that this “eastern thinking” took this “form” in reaction TO Christianity, or more properly Christian individuals, as it’s “habitual” way of avoiding conflict and enhancing it’s “power”.

 

[Neil_LA]

Does “the east” admit the possibility of the incarnation of God Himself?

Does “the east” admit the POSSIBILITY that a very small and geographically isolated group of people COULD have been directly “revealed to” as an example and semination for the whole of mankind to learn those things of God which are only discoverable by direct revelation?

Srimad Bhagavad Gita (4:5-9)

sri bhagavan uvaca

bahuni me vyatitani janmani tava charjuna
tanyaham veda sarvani na tvam vettha parantapa (5)

ajo’pi sannavyayatma bhutanamisvaro’pi san
prakritim svam adhisthaya sambhavamyatmamayaya (6)

yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati bharata
abhyutthanamadharmasya tadatmanam srjamyaham (7)

paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya cha duskritam
dharmasamsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge (8)

janma karma che me divyam evam yo vetti tattavatah
tyaktva deham punar janma naiti mameti so’rjuna (9)

The Supreme Lord said;

O chaistiser of the enemy, both you and I have passed through many births. I can remember all of them, whereas you, O Arjun cannot.

Although my etenal form is transcendental to birth and death, and I am the Lord of all beings, I appear within the world in My Divine nature, by my sweet will, extending My internal potency.

O Bharat, whenever there is a decline of religion, and an uprising of irreligion, I personally make my advent.

I appear age after age to deliver the saintly devotees, vanquish the miscreants, and firmly establish true religion.

O Arjun, one who comes to know thus the truth of my pastimes of Divine birth and activities, does not undergo rebirth. After giving up this body he attains me."

Thus one can see that Hinduism not only says that God does INDEED incarnate Himself on earth, he has done so many times in the past and will continue to do so again in the future.

God reveals himself according to the needs of the people and the age, so that is why I don’t have a problem saying that Jesus Christ IS God incarnate, however I don’t believe he is or could be the ONLY Divine incarnation.

 

[Neil_LA]

What you’ve described is a relativistic sycretistic version of several religions. According to the above, it’s possible for human persons to differ in their “personal destinations” from other person based on their “habits” formed while alive (not yet dead).

Now, while I also believe that there are multiple “personal destinations” of the human person post-death, I limit the number of those destinations to TWO (with a pre-final stage for the “good” one being purgatory).

I suppose it’s possible that the “fine differences” between individual experience within purgatory-heaven and within hell COULD be construed as “different destinations chosen in the particulars by the actions of the person while non-dead”, the “multiple personal destinations” sounds like either a concession to the opinions of varied cultures which a “conglomerate culture” is trying not to offend (thus the syncretism), or a hyper-intellectualising (racing conjecture) of the “natural law” premise that “individuals get individual treatment”, which is “uncorrected” by direct revelation.

My belief is that “the east”, which has always had a “habit” of syncretic appeasement of sub-cultures (a synthecization in accomodation of differences), has created a weed-like growth of conjecture with no “governor”, which could ONLY be governed by an authoritative pronouncement of absolute truth, otherwise known as direct revelation.

The ideas you’ve presented above certainly make some people, most particularly WESTERNERS (those from nominally Christian regions), FEEL like those ideas accord with Christian principles, while in fact are only an accreted appeasement to draw in those whom that “coincidence” makes feel more comfortable.

I dare say that this “eastern thinking” took this “form” in reaction TO Christianity, or more properly Christian individuals, as it’s “habitual” way of avoiding conflict and enhancing it’s “power”.

This is a simplisitic and dismissive statement. You make these pronouncements without engaging in the teachings.

Your assuredness of your own view has apparently closed your mind to another way of approaching reality.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

This is a simplisitic and dismissive statement. You make these pronouncements without engaging in the teachings.

Your assuredness of your own view has apparently closed your mind to another way of approaching reality.

I have no problem with anyone having their own approach to reality. I simply have one as well, and will not use anyone else’s approach.

To “engage” in your “teachings” is to try to understand them in a way meaningful to me. I have done that.

If you can “accomodate” more than one “approach to God” in your one person, then I can see why you are attracted to the syncretism and appeasment mentality of “the east”.

To have “all religions” is to have none.

 

[Neil_LA]

To have “all religions” is to have none.

You are putting words in my mouth. I don’t “have” all religions…While I believe all paths to God are valid, one can’t practice them all…I never claimed to practice them all…

I am a Vaishnava of the RadhaVallabh sampradaya in the lineage of Sri Hit Harivansh Goswami Mahaprabhu.

Again…I’m not saying that Christianity isn’t a valid path. All that I request is for each sect of Christianity to acknowledge that it is one path of many.

First each Christian sect should say that its approach to practicing the Christian tradition is one way of many Christian ways. The Catholic should take the lead. Let the Pope humble himself before his Orthodox and Protestant brothers. Let him say that they are both true and valid ways of attaining the Lord Jesus.

Then let the Christians unite in their diversity and let them together proclaim to their Muslim and Jewish brothers that the Muslim and Jewish traditions are true and valid ways of attaining God.

Then let the Christians and the Muslims and the Jews together join hands in LOVE and invite all sects of the Hindus, all sects of the Buddhists and all sects of everybody else to join together.

Let us all have deep faith and love for our own traditions, let us be thankful that God has shown Himself to us in the depth of our hearts. Let us joyfully come together in fellowship with others who practice and believe the same tradition.

But let us also be respectful of other lovers of God who are outside of our tradition, but who nonetheless have a sincere and loving relationship with God.

Let us realize that we can be faithful to our own tradition while leaving space for others to love God according to their hearts.

While we thus unite this way, we will become firmer in our own devotion and love of God. All lovers of God of all traditions can live in harmony and cease fighting. Then we can do the real work of making change in the world. Showing our love for God and our love for our neighbor.

If someone asks us about how we believe in God, then we can tell them. But first let our actions show our love. Let us cease from trying to show how my tradition is better than yours. We will guide all sincere seekers to God, but we will know that only God can work in the heart and His work might look different than what we would think.

Call me naive or call me idealistic, but I think it breaks our Lord’s heart when he see his children squabbling. I believe that we can each be faithful to our own vision and still respect others whose ways might differ.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

You are putting words in my mouth. I don’t “have” all religions…While I believe all paths to God are valid, one can’t practice them all…I never claimed to practice them all…

I am a Vaishnava of the RadhaVallabh sampradaya in the lineage of Sri Hit Harivansh Goswami Mahaprabhu.

Again…I’m not saying that Christianity isn’t a valid path. All that I request is for each sect of Christianity to acknowledge that it is one path of many.

The Church does acknowledge that all persons who know no better than their current understanding of God drawn from their understanding of natural law, and hints given them by their “religions” from the source which is the Church, are “paths” to “salvation” (to use a Christian term).

But the Church states flatly that where doctrines of any person’s religion contradicts Magisterial dogma (Catholic) which they know is in contradiction to Magisterial dogma that person is culpable for following false, and evil, doctrine, and imperils their salvation.

First each Christian sect should say that its approach to practicing the Christian tradition is one way of many Christian ways. The Catholic should take the lead. Let the Pope humble himself before his Orthodox and Protestant brothers. Let him say that they are both true and valid ways of attaining the Lord Jesus.

The disagreements are over doctrines that directly contradict each other. It may be in the “mind” of the religionist of “the east” to paper over direct contradiction with syncretic appeasement in direct violation of the idea of truth being true, but that is known to us as a false peace, which creates greater evil to be dealt with in the future. That is simply not our way.

Then let the Christians unite in their diversity and let them together proclaim to their Muslim and Jewish brothers that the Muslim and Jewish traditions are true and valid ways of attaining God.

Once again, all persons will practice what they know of, and only those who know that the truth is held most fully in the Church and reject it anyway are culpable for that sin.

There is no uniting in “diversity of doctrine” when one group’s doctrine is God given revelation from the authorized source and the other group’s doctrine directly contradicts the revealed doctrine.

Then let the Christians and the Muslims and the Jews together join hands in LOVE and invite all sects of the Hindus, all sects of the Buddhists and all sects of everybody else to join together.

What is the difference between inviting all groups to agree on one truth and inviting all groups to agree on contradictory truth?

One puts truth at the center of the question, while the other puts something other than the truth at the center. Anything but truth being at the center of this question is an evil situation.

Let us all have deep faith and love for our own traditions, let us be thankful that God has shown Himself to us in the depth of our hearts. Let us joyfully come together in fellowship with others who practice and believe the same tradition.

Amen!

But let us also be respectful of other lovers of God who are outside of our tradition, but who nonetheless have a sincere and loving relationship with God.

Amen, amen indeed!

Let us realize that we can be faithful to our own tradition while leaving space for others to love God according to their hearts.

That is a basic and central tenet of Christianity (as per the Catholics at any rate). Amen yet again!

While we thus unite this way, we will become firmer in our own devotion and love of God. All lovers of God of all traditions can live in harmony and cease fighting. Then we can do the real work of making change in the world. Showing our love for God and our love for our neighbor.

So, you ARE a Catholic, then?

If someone asks us about how we believe in God, then we can tell them. But first let our actions show our love. Let us cease from trying to show how my tradition is better than yours. We will guide all sincere seekers to God, but we will know that only God can work in the heart and His work might look different than what we would think.

All sincere people are working toward doing as God wants His children to do, but not all people’s ways are as efficacious as others, just as one persons skill in something is not as efficacious as another more talented person.

To allow others to not have the advantages that you see in your religion is uncharitable if you truly believe that your religion is more efficacious than theirs.

To not allow this “free trade” flow of efficacious information is to coerce stagnancy (at least) in the dissemination of God’s gift of what is best for us. That some haven’t the confidence to say that their religion is the most efficacious for doing what religions do is simply a statement of their lack of confidence, and nothing more.

To claim it a PRINCIPLE that everyone is right regardless of their mutual contradictions is to coerce a false peace by force.

The only way to enforce such a situation as you suggest is to make it a crime worthy of punishment to pit one’s beliefs against anothers. Is that really the answer to your obviosly much hated “conflict”, which is in reality only sorting truth from non-truth?

Call me naive or call me idealistic, but I think it breaks our Lord’s heart when he see his children squabbling. I believe that we can each be faithful to our own vision and still respect others whose ways might differ.

I agree with you completely.

We SHOULD be faithful to our own vision (our own religion) and respect other’s ways which we don’t see as actually evil, but to not share with others our help to see our truths as truths would itself be criminal, and anyone supporting this criminality must be called what they are.

Lovers of calm over truth. I prefer to worship truth, and not mere calm.

 

[Neil_LA]

I’m very sad. It appears to me that Christains and Muslims and Jews are always going to fight and there is just nothing that can be done about it.

Its interesting, Jesus said “By their fruits you shall know them…” and I see fighting, stubborness, intransigence, narrow-mindedness.

I guess it comes down to fear. If you believe that God would only provide two options for people"the truth" or hell, then I can understand why people feel desperate and are anxious to get it right.

Its interesting how many people are so ready to say that the different traditions contradict each other and are therefore wrong and evil, but then express an unwillingness to even be open to hearing what the other traditions say.

They have preconceived notions about what other traditions say and dismiss them totally out of hand.

Personally, I’m willing to be open to changing my religion to Catholicism if I ever see a person who expresses genuine holiness. So far in my experience, I have encountered holiness in other religions, but not in Christianity (well…maybe one person) I wonder why that is? Christianity claims to be the “true faith” but I have yet to see evidence that this is true.

 

[LDNCatholic]

Personally, I’m willing to be open to changing my religion to Catholicism if I ever see a person who expresses genuine holiness. So far in my experience, I have encountered holiness in other religions, but not in Christianity (well…maybe one person) I wonder why that is? Christianity claims to be the “true faith” but I have yet to see evidence that this is true.

Out of interest, how do you define holiness?

 

[Neil_LA]

Out of interest, how do you define holiness?

That’s a very good question.

From www.merriam-webster.com the first definition of “holy” expresses what I believe:

“exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness”

That sums it up…of course God alone is complete holiness.