Do all religions stand or fall together?

[chessnerd321]

To an extent maybe. But also definitely no. Nobody worships Zeus anymore. That didn’t mark the end of faith.

Statement three seems like the opposite of obviously true–obviously false. I mean sure anyone can believe whatever they want. People believe all sorts of contradictory things at the same time. But it makes no sense to say that of two mutually opposed beliefs neither is false. Unless you don’t believe in truth and falsehood. In which case why are you even posting. Why bother convincing me to believe something if there’s no truth.

 

[Magnanimity]

Between religions there are differences. Where do you draw the line? Monotheism vs. Polytheism vs. Pantheism? Ancient vs. recent (e.g., Scientology)? Wise and loving God vs. indifferent or capricious? Personal God vs. The Force?

In other words, which religions are supposed to stand together?

All very good questions, and I certainly don’t have all the answers. I did note that particular attention should be paid to the religions that have had “staying-power.”

But, as some scholars have pointed out (e.g., David Bentley Hart), there is substantial overlap in the worldviews of at least the religions I mentioned (ok, Buddhism might be an exception). As in, one can find, if one looks hard enough, the unity that persists in understandings of God and ultimate reality between say, Thomistic Catholicism, Vedantic Hinduism and Sufi Islam. And then there are spiritual-practice overlapping that occurs between, say, meditative practices among Catholics, Tibetan Buddhists and Sufi Muslims.

But the question is whether religious sectarianism can/should persist. Isn’t it in the interest of the religious communities to learn about one another and appreciate those things of immense value in religions outside of your own? Or, do we really want to believe that we are in the exclusive club being Catholic? Such an attitude seems not only short-sighted but probably puerile.

 

[De_Maria]

What do you think?

I think you’re wrong. I don’t think you understand any of those religions and I don’t think you understand the Teachings of Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church.

(Let me press the pause button on any desire on anyone’s part to ‘educate’ me about the differences between the religions–let’s proceed assuming that I am knowledgeable of the fundamentals of all of them.)

That’s the only way to get to your error. How can you compare an atheistic philosophy like Buddhism to the Commandments of God who is the Creator of all things visible and invisible?

Cynthia Bourgeault (an episcopalian priest and spiritual guru that I admire) recently said something in a couple of different podcasts that all religions must either stand together or fall together. It got me thinking whether she may be right.

She’s wrong.

Now, don’t get me wrong–I’m happy as a clam being Catholic. I feel that the Church generally does a great job of fostering holiness within its people and connecting them with the Source (God).

God speaks through His Church. The Catholic Church is God’s megaphone. It is God who is reconciling people to Himself through the Catholic Church.

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

But, I imagine that, were I born in Thailand, I’d be happy as a clam being Buddhist. Or, were I born in Indonesia, I’d be happy with being Muslim.

That’s true. But you would be deluded in doing so.

I wonder if, for the religions that have had enormous staying-power and/or centuries of growth (including, but not limited to, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism), in a certain sense these religions do really stand or fall together, going forward.

Any members of those religions who oppose the Catholic Church, oppose God, who established the Catholic Church and speaks through her.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

If progress moves ever forward and secularism continues its onslaught and growth over the wider world, would we reach a place where all religious folks would feel more united with one another against a common “enemy” of irreligiousity/secularism/atheism?

The problem is that many of those non-Catholic religions have already embraced secularism. How many of them oppose the pro-life Doctrines of the Catholic Church? How many of them deny that Matrimony is for life, one man and one woman?

The following points seem obviously true:

1. Secularism (religious unaffiliation) seems like it will continue to grow and spread in the ensuing years.

Even some religions embrace the beliefs of secular society. Buddhists, for example, do not believe in God. They are atheists.

1. It seems very unlikely that any one religion will spread over the whole Earth and eradicate all the others.

But there will come a time when the whole world will recognize that the Catholic Church is God’s chosen instrument for Teaching His Doctrines to the world.

1. A person can still believe that her religion embodies the most truth/goodness/beauty without holding the position that every other religion outside of hers is intrinsically disordered or false.

The Catholic Church is the pillar of Truth and the Teacher of God’s Wisdom. Those who fall outside the Catholic Church, fall under the category of the Law of works. Those in the Catholic Church fall under the category of the Law of grace.

All outside the Catholic Church will be judged at the end of time. All inside the Catholic Church will be justified in the Sacraments and their Judgment has already begun.

1 Peter 4:17For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

What do you think? Do the religions stand together or fall together?

No.

Can religious folks afford to continue to be so sectarian and ignorant of other religions and the truth/goodness/beauty contained within all religions?

The Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth. The other religions have some truth but are seeking God in the shadows.

Or, can we take the spirit that underlies “Evangelicals and Catholics together,” and cast a wider net out to all religions?

If Evangelicals want to cast a net with Catholics, they should convert and thus show a witness of unity to the world. It is the Protestant rebellion and division which has harmed the Catholic unity of Christ’s Church so badly in the world.

John 17:21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Their disunity and continued rebellion has caused the world to doubt the authenticity of Jesus Christ’s message.

 

[Bithynian]

I think we’re being a bit unfair and discourteous to the OP. Disagreements can be couched in friendly ways.

Moreover, I feel that people are arguing at cross-purposes in this thread. I don’t think the OP is suggesting that we create some sort of homogenous, syncretic religion out of all the world’s faiths: only that are perhaps better ways of working together for the benefit of the common spaces that we share (government, work, etc.).

And part of working co-operatively is being able to identify salient points of commonality between one community and another community. This doesn’t necessarily mean that either our community should be subsumed into theirs (or theirs into ours), and this is quite undesirable in many ways since both parties lose what is distinctive and particular to their own religions.

I’m not sure we can afford to continue in sectarian/tribalistic attitudes of the past

Yes, this is how I primarily interpreted your post (not as a call to syncreticism).

do you think that all of these factors taken together would seem to incline us inevitably forward toward a deepened awareness of one another’s religious paths and appreciation for them

A “deepened awareness” and “appreciation”: yes. I can be deeply aware and appreciate Calvinism even if I myself do not believe it, likewise I can be deeply aware and appreciate Eastern Orthodoxy if I do not necessarily subscribe to all their doctrines. I can, too, have a “deepened awareness” and “appreciation” of pre-Christian Greek and Latin poetry (as the Church Fathers did) without subscribing to the tenets of pre-Christian Hellenic and Roman religion.

 

[Magnanimity]

Everything will fall, be it secularism, heresy, error, or what have you.

I’m sure this is a comforting belief, but it is not supported by data. There is evidence of the continued growth of, say, Islam and Buddhism, not their decline.

This OP is an example of the difference between viewing the Catholic Church as having THE truth as opposed to having A truth.

Not quite. My belief is that Catholicism is unique in possessing a certain “fullness” that other religions lack, but this is a far-cry from a belief that would suggest that other religions do not possess and exemplify extensive truth, goodness and beauty.

To an extent maybe. But also definitely no. Nobody worships Zeus anymore. That didn’t mark the end of faith.

Right. I’m looking at the religions that exemplify “staying-power,” as I mentioned in the OP.

How is it that you see my third point to be obviously false? I stated, “A person can still believe that her religion embodies the most truth/goodness/beauty without holding the position that every other religion outside of hers is intrinsically disordered or false.” This is something you already believe, for example, with reference to Protestants/Evangelicals. You would assert that the Catholic church possesses the “fullness of the faith,” but this doesn’t commit you to advocating that Protestantism is sheer falsehood.

 

[openmind77]

What do you think? Do the religions stand together or fall together? Can religious folks afford to continue to be so sectarian and ignorant of other religions and the truth/goodness/beauty contained within all religions? Or, can we take the spirit that underlies “Evangelicals and Catholics together,” and cast a wider net out to all religions?

Religions should definitely stand together in the sense that we should all respect each other’s religions. But it is not true that all religions will last for ever.

For instance, someone like the Christ will return to the world very soon. He will explain to us the ‘truth’ about everything that different religions currently believe. It is obvious that some religions will fall away when the truth is revealed directly from the Christ without any contamination or interpretation by successive religious leaders (or synods etc).

For instance, I don’t see how a sect like the Ahmadis can survive once the Christ returns (Ahmadis believe that their leader Ahmad was the Christ). After the Christ returns only a few religions will remain, the rest will just fade away.

 

[Magnanimity]

How can you compare an atheistic philosophy like Buddhism to the Commandments of God who is the Creator of all things visible and invisible?

As you are likely aware, not all varieties of Buddhism are non-theistic, though some are. However, it should not be ignored that the the Buddhist notion of dukkha bears strong resemblance to the teachings of Christ, especially of the sermon on the mount or the telling of the rich man that he should go, sell all he has and follow Christ. Detachment from the things of the world (which often bring suffering) is a substantial overlap between Christ and the Buddha. Of course, the teaching are not precisely the same, but the convergence should not be ignored.

But there will come a time when the whole world will recognize that the Catholic Church is God’s chosen instrument for Teaching His Doctrines to the world.

Again, this is a comforting belief. But, all evidence is to the contrary–growth in major world religions (and religious unaffiliation!) is the trend.

The Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth. The other religions have some truth but are seeking God in the shadows.

Thank you! This is a powerful acknowledgment. I only ask that continue to ponder what the truth of your statement above might entail for all of us going forward. We can believe that our religious uniquely possesses a “fullness,” and even want to proselytize, but others are still able to seek and link up to God, even if by “shadows.” This is a clear teaching of LG, 16.

 

[TNMan]

Not quite. My belief is that Catholicism is unique in possessing a certain “fullness” that other religions lack, but this is a far-cry from a belief that would suggest that other religions do not possess and exemplify extensive truth, goodness and beauty.

All good things, without Christ, are nothing. We may call something “good” but if it’s not to show the love of Christ, it means nothing in the eyes of God.

I relate this to truth as well. There are certain mathematical and physiological truths out there, but in matters of faith and all other religions, it’s all rubbish if it doesn’t point us to the Triune God and the saving work of Jesus on the Cross.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think we’re being a bit unfair and discourteous to the OP. Disagreements can be couched in friendly ways.

Thanks… whew, I knew to anticipate some pushback, but not to the level I’ve seen so far!

And part of working co-operatively is being able to identify salient points of commonality between one community and another community. This doesn’t necessarily mean that either our community should be subsumed into theirs (or theirs into ours), and this is quite undesirable in many ways since both parties lose what is distinctive and particular to their own religions.

Yes, absolutely. Many different threads can come together to form a stronger rope, and they can certainly all work together to stay strong against the rising tide of anti-religious sentiment and a vehement secularism. But, I’m not necessarily advocating just another type of us v. them dualism–the religious vs the anti-religious. I’m more stating that anti-religion is the thing to really be opposed and exposed for the paltry thing that it is, not other religions, and that in any case the secular among us should be continuously reminded of the treasures found in religion (especially Catholicism).

 

[goout]

There is a false premise in your proposal.
And that is that Christianity is a mere religion, and that the religious expression of Christianity is the essence of it. And so because there are other expressions of religion, they can be largely equated with one another.

But the essence of Christianity is a person, Jesus Christ. And there is only one Christ. There are not various versions of Christ.
Christianity is unique in this aspect of complete personal relationship with a God who creates us for love, and continually seeks us for love.

If Christ is drawing all things to himself, and reconciling all things to himself, then we do not have a plurality of religions when we see God face to face.
We have one Christ, and one Body of Christ.

 

[Nihilo]

As a classical liberal who believes the right to religious liberty is an authentic, basic, fundamental, inherent, absolute, inalienable and natural human right, I completely agree that all religions do in this sense stand or fall together.

 

[VeryBlessed]

I heard somebody put it this way, and I thought it very true. There is truth in all things, but the fullness of truth is found only in Jesus Christ. Sometimes I think our freedom of religion can mislead us into thinking that all religions are equally true. Due to their competing claims, it simply cannot be. That doesn’t mean religions other than Christianity don’t have some truth. The way I see it each religion has varying degrees of truth, but i honestly think that the fullness of truth is only in Jesus Christ.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I agree with what you say here, but it is a hard sell, especially to religious people, who generally refuse to give an inch toward accepting the essential truths contained within all or most religions, apart from the differences in detail. I would, however, go one step further, and attempt to unite ALL people, those of faith and those who are secular, in a common bond of human brotherhood and sisterhood. Idealistic and far-fetched? Perhaps. But our hope for the future as a species depends more on exactly such idealism than it does on division, bickering, mistrust, and hatred for the “other.”

 

[chessnerd321]

How is it that you see my third point to be obviously false? I stated, “A person can still believe that her religion embodies the most truth/goodness/beauty without holding the position that every other religion outside of hers is intrinsically disordered or false.” This is something you already believe, for example, with reference to Protestants/Evangelicals. You would assert that the Catholic church possesses the “fullness of the faith,” but this doesn’t commit you to advocating that Protestantism is sheer falsehood.

The devil is in the details of what you mean. When you’ve restated yourself to “sheer falsehood” I’m more inclined to agree. If Catholicism is a golden nugget. Then other religions are basalt with varying amounts of flakes of gold. Extending the analogy it seems wrong to refer to Protestant faiths as “true” without qualifying that statement. Whereas Catholicism is just true. It was founded by Truth, the divine person.

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Other faiths contain truth in them insofar as they have elements of Catholicism in them. They have no unique truth outside of the Catholic Church. When we say the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, we are not saying that it’s ‘bucket of truth is filled up whereas that religion is only about 60% full.’ All truth is contained within the Catholic Church.

 

[Magnanimity]

But the essence of Christianity is a person, Jesus Christ. And there is only one Christ.

It is true that the Incarnation is utterly distinctive and amazing. Truly, that is unique. But the religion itself is rather functional, don’t you think? That is, a primary purpose of Catholicism (and all religions, really) is to assist the people in becoming holy and to help them return to the Source. I think the functional element of religion is inescapable, and insofar as we consider a religion from this vantage point, more of an equality can be seen.

 

[Magnanimity]

I agree with what you say here, but it is a hard sell, especially to religious people, who generally refuse to give an inch toward accepting the essential truths contained within all or most religions, apart from the differences in detail

This attitude was common in prior generations, but I wonder if a genuine openness to learning from and appreciating other religions is more pervasive these days. I should look up some polling on that.

I would, however, go one step further, and attempt to unite ALL people, those of faith and those who are secular, in a common bond of human brotherhood and sisterhood. Idealistic and far-fetched? Perhaps.

Probably. Other than someone like, say, Sam Harris, who is genuinely open to a type of spirituality (his meditation technique is close to that of Tibetan Buddhism or even Catholic centering prayer), I don’t know how to unite the spiritual among us with ardent materialists who deny a core aspect of humanity - the heart (or spirit). That is quite a challenge, to be sure. If you mean uniting around democracy and classical liberalism, that’s just political stuff. And politics, just as much as religion has a strong sectarian tug. But I agree that sectarianism of any type is ugly

 

[Babaganoush]

I agree to an extent. Secular humanism is spreading fast, and the modern conception is based on scientific materialism. Scientific materialism is contrary to all religion.

 

[Brendan]

Being united in Truth is great, but there are clearly divisions where there cannot be unity.

The statement “Jesus is God” is either True or False. To be united in Truth would, by logic, mean excluding those who hold the opposite position. Any unity that is based on Truth would require that.

Likewise with the statement " The Eucharist is the True Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity" is either True or False. It cannot be both.

And as a final point, it does not necessarily Ture that all religious would stand or fall together. If they were all man made, that might be true ( but religious have fallen in the past without taking all other religious down with them). If one was of Divine origin, it would not be affected if non-Divine religions fell.