Do all religions stand or fall together?

[VanitasVanitatum]

There’s not much room for compatibility aside from living in the same area.

 

[Magnanimity]

It’s hard to argue against success. There can be no doubt that Buddhism, Christianity and Islam have been (and continue to be) enormously successful and growing religions. You merely assert that non-Christian religions do not lead to unity with God. You’ve not shown how you could possibly know that.

You are the one making the positive assertion that non-Christian religions do not lead to unity with God, therefore (obviously) the burden for supporting this assertion lies with you. So far, it’s merely a baseless assertion. But perhaps it’s worse than that. You have not accounted for Siddhartha (Gautama) the Buddha, Ghandi or the Dalai Lama, all of whom are recognized as holy men (and not just by Buddhists and Hindus). How do you account for the general opinion of their holiness? Accident? No connection to their religion? That stretches credulity to the brink.

Do you know how many people will be saved in the end? And how many people will not? I don’t.

Good for you. I’m genuinely glad to hear this. This precise question was asked of Christ himself, and he did not answer it.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The inclination toward sectarianism was visible early on within this very thread.

Okay, I guess that’s one way to define it. That’s a very broad and fundamental use of the word. I’m not sure that such a broad sense of the word fits into a discussion about theistic religions coming together to combat atheism in popular culture and in governments. But whatever, I guess it’ll still work.

And what of Islamic rhetoric toward the West? Not sectarian? What of Protestant leaders toward the Catholic Church

Yes it’s sectarian. But I’d say it’s not mainstream. As in, it’s not what the average Joe, or Ahmad, believes. It’s what some fringe leaders are trying to push.

But the position that you’ve articulated here is basically already happening against atheistic ideologies like Marxism. Also, I’m not sure where you’re getting the sectarianism from, except from fringe elements.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the Dali Lama himself have all been fighting Communism (which can also be anti-theism, not just atheism), or other forms of atheistic ideologies for the better part of the last Century until today.

So, do you disagree with this ^? Or are you taking a position that not enough is being done?

 

[Magnanimity]

Okay, I guess that’s one way to define it.

Let’s just do the easy thing of pulling a definition from wikiP: “Sectarianism is a form of prejudice, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching relations of inferiority and superiority to differences between subdivisions within a group.” And by group, the entry goes on to specify large umbrellas of groups - religion, politics, ethnic and class-based. When I have been using the word sectarian within this thread, I have been adhering to a definition close enough to this. You seem to think this is a “broad” use of the word? I’m not sure what that means.

With regard to sectarianism, let’s say within religion, its underlying tendency is to move about in the world in dualistic ways of thinking–to divide everything up into various groups and then to assess the relative value of those groups. Right? With me so far?

So, let’s say I’m Catholic with sectarian tendencies (surely there are more than a few of these types within CAF). When I perceive that my neighbor, who is a practicing Buddhist, gives every indication of living a holy life, full of equanimity and compassion toward others, I can’t help but to feel sorry for her. Why do I feel sorry for her? Because something seems to be terribly wrong with her religion in that this religion is not a path leading her to holiness? No, I feel sorry for her borne out of feelings of prejudice and superiority. As in, I tell myself that she doesn’t have Christ who really is the key figure in all of history. She’s missing out on something amazing. She has no communion with Christ, she has no Eucharist–poor, poor lady. She really is part of an “inferior” religion.

So, I decide to go talk to her about Christ, to proselytize her, basically. She listens to my pitch about Catholicism and why it’s so great with as much equanimity and compassion as anyone could expect from a person listening to a religion-pitch. And she isn’t budged an inch in the direction of Catholicism, let alone Christianity. Rather, she feels genuinely happy for me that I’ve found my own path. And this leads the discussion toward pitying, not Catholics or Buddhists, but those who eschew anything spiritual or religious–those are the folks who are really suffering, the materialists and anti-theists.

So, in this little thought-experiment I was the sectarian, complete with prejudice about my and her respective religions and why mine was better and she needed to hear about it. She needed to hear about it because her religion isn’t quite good enough–it’s missing complete chunks of reality–Christ, specifically. Her response was thoroughly non-sectarian. She appreciated all the good that Catholicism serves in the world (generally) and in my life (particularly). And she felt no ill-will at all. She was already aware before my attempt to “spread the gospel” to her that Christianity is one of those proselytizing religions. And that’s ok with her. It’s just part of the Christian package–to attempt to spread itself by telling others about it and trying to persuade them that they too should join the religion.

 

[Magnanimity]

But the position that you’ve articulated here is basically already happening against atheistic ideologies like Marxism. Also, I’m not sure where you’re getting the sectarianism from, except from fringe elements.

Christians, Jews, Muslims, and the Dali Lama himself have all been fighting Communism (which can also be anti-theism, not just atheism), or other forms of atheistic ideologies for the better part of the last Century until today.

So, here is what I want to know. Do you think that most Catholics here at CAF have an attitude like the Buddhist in my thought-experiment above or like the Catholic? If it’s the latter, then yes, absolutely, sectarianism is alive and well in the rank and file of Catholicism. I understand that you don’t want to believe that it’s true about “the average Joe, or Ahmad,” but I think this little thread exposes the pervasive existence of sectarianism.

You couched your replies in terms of fighting Marxism and communism, but that’s not quite what I’m getting at. I don’t deny the historical reality of what you’ve asserted (Catholics are quite proud of the work that St. John Paul II did to assist the wider world in combating the spread of communism). My question was simply put–do we stand together, all the major religions, in the face of spreading anti-religious secularism? Or, will be just as easily battle amongst ourselves to win the fight of which is the most superior of all the religions? Will I resist my neighbor being a Muslim, just as I would resist my neighbor being an anti-religious bigot? See what I’ve been after in this thread now?

 

[openmind77]

ATraveller:

From a theological POV, God will preserve the Christian faith.

Ok, and what’s to say that God will not preserve all faiths? There is a functional element to all religions—their design is to draw the people toward holiness and to lead them ever toward the One (toward Reality).

I would be lacking in faith if I went around saying Jesus was wrong and we had to band together with all the other false religions to keep his Church going.

That’s true. It’s a good thing that no one here is saying that that’s what we should do. And what is meant by a “false religion?” A religion with a significant amount of truth and also some error within it? Clearly, none of the major religions I’ve mentioned are entirely false (quite the contrary).

It is not a question of God ‘preserving’ all faiths. God will always maintain human freewill to follow any faith we wish without coercion.

But when the Christ returns to the world, he will point out the errors in all faiths. All faiths have some errors to a greater or lesser degree. Once people learn about these errors from the Christ’s own mouth, they will decide on their own whether to continue with their previous faith or not. So many faiths will just die off on their own, after the Christ returns and reveals the truth to all humanity.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The irony of the sectarian tendencies in a thread arguing against sectarianism was not lost on me.

Part of it is due to the source you used and the way you framed your initial query.

If the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Dalai Lama called for all religions to pull together against the forces of secularism, materialism, violence, oppression etc then I’m interested in the subject.

Instead you cited a female Episcopalian minister and “spiritual guru” who seemed to be saying all religions would hang separately if they didn’t hang together. If you’ve spent any time on this forum you know that such a person, described in those terms, and seemingly preaching universalism, is not going to command much respect here.

 

[Magnanimity]

OK fine. You know what? I can see that you’ve made a fair criticism here. I accept it. It’s not as if I haven’t heard prominent Catholics advocate a similar position to hers. And perhaps it would have been wiser to begin the discussion with a more well-known Catholic than with a lesser-known, non-Catholic. It was simply fresh on my mind because I had recently listened to two separate podcasts with rev. Bourgeault as the guest, and she had made a similar point in both episodes…so it got me thinking that she was on to something.
I’ll be a big boy and accept this criticism and thank you for it.

 

[Crusader13]

After reading your thought experiment, it sounds like the main reason for wanting to “proselytize” to the Buddhist woman is because her religion isn’t good enough. A few of your previous comments also give rise to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is set apart from other religions because Catholics view it as “better” or “superior” to all others.

The reason for the “proselytizing” isn’t out of wanting others to have a more fuller picture of reality, but because the nature of the Catholic Church is salvific. This belief, however, is lost on many and so we get the misunderstanding that all non-Catholic religions can lead to heaven because Jesus himself is using those religions/faiths/beliefs, whether that individual acknowledges it or not.

Other religions, for whatever “good” they contribute to the world/society/individual personal enlightenment, so on and so forth, are not willed by God because of the good they do. The other religions are not salvific and their ultimate effectiveness in terms of leading souls to heaven is zero, according to Jesus.

I think the lines get blurred by this belief in allowing someone to practice their own religion and accepting the truths of that religion, in refence to their morality, is the same as saying, that religion will also lead you to heaven.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Standing together. Some decades back, all the Christian churches were against contraception. Only one remains standing, and we are watching the family unit fall apart. Marriages falling apart. Abortion skyrocketing, along with sexually transmitted diseases, mostly because sex has become recreational.

I don’t see how other religions have been a strong soldier in this battle. It’s like they’ve been taken off the battlefield and have lost their ability or will to ‘stand together’.

 

[VeryBlessed]

Buddha, Ghandi or the Dalai Lama, all of whom are recognized as holy men (and not just by Buddhists and Hindus). How do you account for the general opinion of their holiness?

First of all, Holiness is true when God himself says it is holiness. My definition and understanding of holiness is only a pale imitation of the true definition, which he holds in his head and heart. I can place a label of “holiness” on myself, but that doesn’t make it true. Holiness is something I aim for, but I hesitate to claim it for myself, and I greatly hesitate to claim it for others. Perhaps what we really mean when we talk about someone’s holiness is their respectability or my admiration for the way they approach life. I know that sounds obvious, but I am cautious so that as I filter religion through my own worldview, I am not creating God in my image.

Romans 1:20 says, “Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse”. Each person is responsible to embrace whatever part of the full truth that he has heard. Perhaps these people you’ve mentioned, while not Christian, have been very faithful in embracing that part of Christian truth that may have come to them through their other religions. But I think it would be a big mistake to assume that each religion is an equally valid path to God.

 

[Magnanimity]

The reason for the “proselytizing” isn’t out of wanting others to have a more fuller picture of reality, but because the nature of the Catholic Church is salvific. This belief, however, is lost on many and so we get the misunderstanding that all non-Catholic religions can lead to heaven because Jesus himself is using those religions/faiths/beliefs, whether that individual acknowledges it or not.

First, I’d like to acknowledge that you’ve written a very thoughtful reply here and made some interesting points. So, thank you for contributing. I do not know how much you have studied other major world religions, and I’m certainly no expert myself. But, there does seem to be a generalized sense of “salvation” that occurs within each of them. For Christians and Muslims, it’s declared in a specific way (heaven), although most folks, when pushed, cannot describe with much detail what the beatific vision might actually look like. But, I think we would do well to acquaint ourselves with, say, the Buddhist understanding of liberation as being related to the theistic concept of salvation. (I always feel the need to reiterate that I’m not trying to downplay the differences between various concepts within the religions when I speak about these things. So, let me just, again, admit that I’m not seeking some religious lowest-common-denominator (LCD) in having this conversation. I’m more trying to acknowledge legitimate overlap between the religions, and to note that this overlap is meaningful.)

So, I can interpret liberation from samsara as a salvific event. To be released from a cycle of suffering and to be joined with the ultimate (nirvana) is the Buddhist’s ongoing goal. To be released from the sufferings of this world and joined with the ultimate (God) is the Christian and Muslim’s ongoing goal. The rebirth teaching is not the most meaningful aspect of the Buddhist teaching in these regards. Rather, it’s the acknowledgment that samsara is the “cycle of aimless drifting, wandering or mundane existence.” Without having something to center us, all humans persist in a cycle of seemingly endless drifting and wandering about within the confines of the mundane. And this feels like “hell” on Earth. It is true that Christians and Muslims are keenly aware of being on a salvific path with a concept like the Thomist beatific vision being the end-goal. I’m just also acknowledging that Jews, Hindus and Buddhists have a similar path that they are walking. And if we transition to considering the nuts and bolts of the various paths and how they conduct their spiritual walks through life, the overlap is there too (prayer, meditation, good works, compassionate living, especially toward the poor and disenfranchised). Again, this isn’t LCD stuff–this is acknowledgement of real overlap between the religions.

 

[Magnanimity]

After reading your thought experiment, it sounds like the main reason for wanting to “proselytize” to the Buddhist woman is because her religion isn’t good enough. A few of your previous comments also give rise to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is set apart from other religions because Catholics view it as “better” or “superior” to all others.

Well yes, if Catholics were honest with themselves, I think they would see this “superiority belief” as really underlying the need to proselytize practitioners of other major religions. We believe that Christ is the infinite, uncreated, eternal God. And every other religion does not acknowledge this. So, we have something crucially important that we believe other religions are lacking. This easily leads to a superiority belief. Our religion has everything we need to bring us to holiness and to get us on the path of returning to God. We’re skeptical that other religions are similarly equipped.

The other religions are not salvific and their ultimate effectiveness in terms of leading souls to heaven is zero, according to Jesus.

Do you not find it interesting that, although Christ was born in a time during which Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism were well-established, that he did not directly reject these religions? In point of fact, he lived the life of a Jewish man. He transcended it, but he did not reject it. And whatever rejecting he did were in particular attitudes or approaches to the spiritual life (scribes and Pharisees) but never particular religions. This fact doesn’t interest you?

I think the lines get blurred by this belief in allowing someone to practice their own religion and accepting the truths of that religion, in refence to their morality, is the same as saying, that religion will also lead you to heaven.

I don’t know how someone could reason that a major religion that produces someone like Ghandi or the Dalai Lama is an obstacle to salvation. These religions rather seem to be a vehicle inclining their practitioners toward living holy lives, no? Isn’t this the very thing that is acknowledged in Lumen Gentium section 16? A Catholic can hold the belief that the Incarnation of God was necessary (metaphysically speaking) to bridge the gap between God and humanity and to make it possible for people to return back to God. But, it doesn’t follow from this belief that other religions cannot be paths toward holiness and eventuating in union with God. Again, I think this is the essence of the teaching of LG 16. Christ’s incarnation was necessary for “salvation,” but explicit knowledge of this incarnation is not necessary for salvation. Or, do you interpret LG 16 differently?

 

[Magnanimity]

First of all, Holiness is true when God himself says it is holiness.

I get what you’re saying, and I appreciate it. Reticence to see others as holy is probably a healthy practice. But, having said that, I don’t wait around on the sidelines for the church to tell me whether or not Mother Theresa or Pope John Paul II were holy people. All I have to do is look at how they lived their lives and to read the accounts of those who knew them best. So, it is the case that we can make fairly accurate judgments of other people without having to wait around for the church to speak. Christ cautioned us against using too strict a standard of judgment of others because whatever standard we used would be measured back to us. But this isn’t the same as not ever feeling free to judge other people. He taught us not to condemn others, that is true. But judging others is what humans naturally do, and Christ is of course aware of this. So, His caution toward us to be mindful of the standard we use to judge–that it isn’t too strict–because this is the same standard by which we’ll be judged ourselves. Know what I mean?

I am cautious so that as I filter religion through my own worldview, I am not creating God in my image.

This is a very healthy impulse, and it’s wise to be cautious in these regards.

But I think it would be a big mistake to assume that each religion is an equally valid path to God.

I understand, and I’m even sympathetic to your point of view here. Christianity, in perceiving the Incarnation (which was a necessary event) has something crucially important that the other religions lack. So, in this way, the religions aren’t equal. And I would rather all people be Catholic (or Orthodox) than that they be anything else. But, I don’t think it follows from all this that I’ve admitted here that there aren’t other paths to holiness/salvation/God. They’re not all equal, true enough. But that doesn’t mean there is only one religion that gets humanity where it needs to go. And, in any case, being a part of any major religion is vastly superior to ignoring the heart and spirit as materialists/atheists/anti-religious do.

 

[VeryBlessed]

Christ’s incarnation was necessary for “salvation,” but explicit knowledge of this incarnation is not necessary for salvation. Or, do you interpret LG 16 differently?

In special cases, especially for people who have never heard of Christ, some amongst them are saved, based on the concept we get from Romans 1:20, which says that God is able to see those who have embraced the what part of the truth that they have heard. So a lack of exposure to Christ, or spending your life locked in one culture with only one worldview, does not necessarily block people out of heaven or from growing in true Godly goodness. But now that Christ is come, we are compelled (commanded) to bring him to the world, and help people find the most true, the most right, and the most obvious way to God and salvation.

The way I understand my Christian faith tells me that God wants to be found by us. I myself have not yet arrived at the fullness of truth and holiness, because God is infinite but I am finite. But I know with certainty where to aim to find the fullness of truth and holiness. That’s what the church gives me, and I am eternally grateful. Jesus himself came embodying the fullness of truth and the fullness of holiness. I admire many people throughout history, including some of the religious leaders you mentioned, but none of them except Jesus are God incarnate, so for me, he stands alone.

I quite agree with you that atheism and materialism are a tragic choice. I think we human beings are at our best when we are living for some virtuous cause that is bigger than ourselves. For me, there is no higher virtuous cause than Jesus Christ, so do feel like I’ve found the pinnacle.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

With regard to sectarianism, let’s say within religion, its underlying tendency is to move about in the world in dualistic ways of thinking–

Not that it really matters in regards to your main point, but your use of the word sectarian is off. The word implies rigidity and disproportionate zeal. And that’s just the “underlying tendency” or starting point. The sectarian stuff worth mentioning almost always involves violence, or fomenting discord.

So you’re thought experiment doesn’t come close to sectarianism IMO. It’s just an example of an obtuse Christian. Of which, I don’t meet very many. Hence my understanding that the average Joe or Ahmad isn’t sectarian.

You couched your replies in terms of fighting Marxism and communism, but that’s not quite what I’m getting at.

I see what you’re asking. I really do. But I can’t get behind the idea that they exist separately. They are fundamentally the same thing. Which is probably why I don’t think that the average Joe or Ahmad are sectarian.

All things considered, I have sympathy for your point of view, and I understand that fighting the popular culture involves different elements than does fighting Marxism. But I think we are already doing it to some degree. It’s unfortunate that there are some rotten apples who spoil the bunch and cause division.

Do you think that most Catholics here at CAF have an attitude like the Buddhist in my thought-experiment above or like the Catholic?

It’s probably about 50/50 being like the obtuse Catholic. But CAF is not representative of the general public, and there are some extreme posters here that may rise to the level of being sectarian, but the internet isn’t a bellwether for public sentiment.

 

[Magnanimity]

Not that it really matters in regards to your main point, but your use of the word sectarian is off. The word implies rigidity and disproportionate zeal. And that’s just the “underlying tendency” or starting point. The sectarian stuff worth mentioning almost always involves violence, or fomenting discord.

Well, it’s probably important what I mean by sectarian. That’s why I imported the wiki definition. It seems though that you’re reticent to use the word in context that doesn’t involve extremism (violence or fomenting discord). I can’t quite see eye to eye with you there, as it’s always dualistic, sectarian thinking that first underlies the violence and discord. So, I’d rather cut trees down at the root, you know? But if you disagree, let’s just let this one lie. I don’t feel a need to persuade you.

So you’re thought experiment doesn’t come close to sectarianism IMO. It’s just an example of an obtuse Christian.

Haha, yeah ok. I was trying to illustrate that the very thinking (and act resulting from the thinking) had embedded within it a superiority view as well as an undermining and devaluing of the other person’s faith—and all of this is intrinsic to sectarian ways of thinking, but, again, ok…

As to the rest of your comments, I receive them well. You seem to have a mature mind/heart, and I’m glad you’re here on CAF.

Did you consider the original question in the first post? Do you believe that the religions need to stand together? Or can we turn a blind eye when, say, Bill Maher or Sam Harris (or the Catholic in your local Bible-study group) wants to deride Islam and blame the religion itself for violent actions? Or, should we be intolerant of attacking major world religions and defend those religions and their practitioners against the secular, anti-religionists among us? What would you do, in those contexts? Would you nod and go along with Bill Maher, or would you resist him? It’s not your religion that he’s attacking, after all. Do we “stand together” against the rise of this common threat/enemy (pick the term you feel is most appropriate)? Or do we not?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Did you consider the original question in the first post? Do you believe that the religions need to stand together?

I do think religions (the good ones, for lack of a better term) should defend each other when one of them is attacked by atheists or anti-religious groups. But such a defense has more of a civil basis than a religious one. I mean, many atheist libertarians wouldn’t put up with attacking religions either. Should we include them too? I think it’s just common civility to defend someone, or some group, who has been attacked unjustly.

If someone like Maher wants to attack the religion of Islam because of some fringe extremists within, then individuals who possess religious tolerance should defend Islam. If Maher wants to civilly criticize the Wahhabism which the crown prince of SA practices, then I think Maher should be free to do so. So there’s a difference there.

Do we “stand together” against the rise of this common threat/enemy (pick the term you feel is most appropriate)? Or do we not?

Good luck with that. There’s not going to be a common front anytime soon if ever. There can be an attitude of unity among theists regarding how dangerous an intolerance against religion is, but that’s about as far as I think it’ll go. Otherwise, I think religion would start turning into politics. Which is why I brought up religion turning into politics earlier. I don’t know if that’s what Bourgeault has in mind, a universalist mindset in regard to religion. With the guise being a full frontal defense of theism. That seems political, or bound to become political.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think it’s just common civility to defend someone, or some group, who has been attacked unjustly

Unfortunately, @1Lord1Faith, it isn’t civility that will save us. I admire your positive viewpoint, I really do. In a way, I wish I shared it. I won’t say it’s pollyanna-ish, but it’s pretty darn close. I’ve thought about civility itself for some time now. Civility can be defined as being concerned about the thoughts and feelings of others. Civility wasn’t enough, for example, to stop the tirade of Maher and Harris on Maher’s show some years ago. The ‘savior’ in that moment was an actor—Ben Affleck, for crying out loud! We’re definitely in a bad spot when undereducated actors have to defend us. But, in fairness, so much of Maher’s show is determined in advance by who he will and will not allow on his panel… But basically, Islam’s apologist that day was Affleck. Not good. Not even close to enough. Painfully uncivil by that panel.

Good luck with that. There’s not going to be a common front anytime soon if ever.

And why not? That’s what I want to know. A Muslim can believe that his faith tradition is the best, just as a Catholic can. But if all acknowledge and validate each other as various paths to God, why can they not form a common front? I seriously don’t understand why this is a problem. My suspicion is that these sectarian tendencies I’ve been speaking of (superiority-complexes, undermining alternative religions) is behind this refusal to speak up for alternative faith traditions. I hope not because that would be an ugly reality. But that’s what I suspect.

 

[De_Maria]

You are the one making the positive assertion that non-Christian religions do not lead to unity with God,

1. Because you asked.
2. And you are the one making the positive assertion that they do lead to unity with Christ simply by making the illogical conclusion that this must be true because they are a large and successful group.

therefore (obviously) the burden for supporting this assertion lies with you.

On the contrary, since you believe that this is true, in contradiction to the Teachings of the Catholic Church, of which you claim to be an adherent, you need to provide proof that some revelation from God somewhere says that this is so. I don’t see it in Catholic Documents.

So far, it’s merely a baseless assertion.

Yours is.

But perhaps it’s worse than that. You have not accounted for Siddhartha (Gautama) the Buddha, Ghandi or the Dalai Lama, all of whom are recognized as holy men (and not just by Buddhists and Hindus).

I have already told you. Only God reads the heart. You may judge them holy if you want to. But your judgment amounts to dust.

How do you account for the general opinion of their holiness? Accident? No connection to their religion? That stretches credulity to the brink.

It is human opinion. Do you see them in the ranks of the canonized Saints? They are holy without a doubt. But those non-Catholic individuals whom many consider holy, will find out at the end of their lives if God agrees with that human opinion.

Good for you. I’m genuinely glad to hear this. This precise question was asked of Christ himself, and he did not answer it.

Then why do you claim to know who is holy and who isn’t?