How to refute "We are all one" philosophy?

[Shakuhachi]

But the individuality of the soul, how deep does it go. Could it not be that the surface, related to the flesh is where individuality is most intense, but deeper down, more intensely spiritual, we find more unity?

 

[Lucretius]

Christians also say we are one: one race, one family, one body.

But the crude pantheist tends to mean that we are all reducible to one, that our multitude is an illusion. The Christian unity is not one of reduction , however, but one one of transcendence.

In transcendence, a multitude is actually one, but their multitude is preserved. They are one and many. Think about it: the body has millions of cells, and billions of molecules, yet we are one self. By being one self, the parts of our body don’t entirely loss their distinction.

It is for that reason that we compare the unity of the Christian Church to the relationship between our self and our body: we are one in Christ, but we remain distinct individuals. In this way the truth of our distinction from each other, and our desire to be one, become fulfilled by Christ in his Church.

Transcendence reaches its pinicle in the doctrine of the Trinity, where God is absolutely one in essence, nature, substance, being, etc., and yet is absolutely a family of three persons too, distinguished only by their relationships with each other.

The problem with the pantheism reduction is that is denies the truth of our diversity, while the Christian Truth, being more complete, contains the truths in pantheism while containing also the truth from the other side of the paradox.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I think we can be united in charity, that’s the thing we all can be united

Even enemies can be united and be charitable to each other. The greatest commandments and the ‘Parable of the Good Samaritan’ sum this up well.

 

[yankeesouth]

Big trouble. Welcome to relativism…

Pope Benedict XVI…

“The risen Lord instructed his apostles, and through them his disciples in all ages, to take his word to the ends of the earth and to make disciples of all people,” retired Pope Benedict wrote. “‘But does that still apply?’ many inside and outside the church ask themselves today. ‘Is mission still something for today? Would it not be more appropriate to meet in dialogue among religions and serve together the cause of world peace?’ The counter-question is: ‘Can dialogue substitute for mission?’

“In fact, many today think religions should respect each other and, in their dialogue, become a common force for peace. According to this way of thinking, it is usually taken for granted that different religions are variants of one and the same reality,” the retired pope wrote. “The question of truth, that which originally motivated Christians more than any other, is here put inside parentheses. It is assumed that the authentic truth about God is in the last analysis unreachable and that at best one can represent the ineffable with a variety of symbols. This renunciation of truth seems realistic and useful for peace among religions in the world.

“It is nevertheless lethal to faith. In fact, faith loses its binding character and its seriousness, everything is reduced to interchangeable symbols, capable of referring only distantly to the inaccessible mystery of the divine,” he wrote.

Op…you might find some answers in a book called The Popes Against Modern Errors.

 

[lordjules]

Instead of assuming someone is wrong, I quite like asking the person as politely as possible what they mean by their statement and try not to second guess their answer. That way both of us can benefit. There is much to be said for the Socratic method.