Interfaith as a Faith

[Dah-veeth]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I can not see how, since the above mentioned "enlightened ones" do not preach nor teach similar messages to mankind. Of all of the voices coming from the wildnerness, only one states He is the way. The rest only try to show the way...

I'm pretty sure They all say They are the Way. When a Manifestation of God, a Prophet and Messenger from God comes to mankind, He is the Way to salvation, salvation and advancement for civilization and the individual members of it.

[DrFree]

First let me apologize to participants in this forum. I seem to have kicked off the thread, and then dropped out of the discussion. Fortunately it went without me very well for a while.

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Have you ever checked out the definition for universalism? I'm not sure what it is myself but I came across the term in sociology of religion and I got the idea it is the kind of religion where you believe all religions are good. I did have the impression that it meant Christians who accept all other religions as equal to their own. If that is the case, then you do take it a step further. I really like the similarities you point out. I am simply amazed to see someone express my own beliefs so well. Thanks for sharing.

Ruby, this is a late response, for which I am embarrassed.

For many years I have been a part of the Unitarian-Universalist Church, a Twentieth Century merger of the Unitarian and Universalists congregations. Both had a strong presence in 18th & 19th liberal religious thought in America, though Unitarianism itself traces back to 16th Century Transylvania.

A quip that suggests the essence of these faiths goes something like this: "Universalists believe that God is too good to damn fallen souls to Hell; Unitarians believe that they are too good to be damned." The essence of the Universalist faith in the 19th Century was universal salvation, everyone is saved.

I no longer style myself a unitarian. That word literally refers to the opponents of the trinitarian doctrine that ultimate swept orthodox Christianity. I'm not a unitarian not because I don't believe in a single god rather than a trinity or a plurality, but because I don't understand how to count gods. (Apologies for the compound negatives!)

I do believe in a form of universalism. I'm not sure I'm ready to say that everybody is saved. But I do believe that everyone has the opportunity and means of salvation within their own culture and religion, without having to import doctrines from elsewhere. You don't have to convert to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Juche or any other faith to be righteous, saved and beloved of God. The question is not which religion you belong to; it's what you do with the elements of faith your religion gives you.

Namiste,
Dr Free

[Dah-veeth]

Unitarian -- monotheist.... I believe in only one God.

Universalist -- I believe God desires the salvation of everyone, and I believe salvation is loving God.... if you love God, great!

I'm not a member of the UUA, though.

[DrFree]

A lot of energy has been expended on this thread disputing the dangers of fundamentalism and whether any form of dialog can effectively address that threat.

There seemed also to be a strong suggestion by some participants that fundamentalism was uniformly dangerous as a source of intolerant tyranny, if not terrorism. Now while I agree that in the hands of someone with a personal history that leads to hate, fundamentalism can crystalize that hatred into something really dangerous. But it is a mistake to categorize all fundamentalist in that mold. All groups have spectra of attitudes, only the most radical have inclinations toward sociopathic behavior. Unfortunately, if the group is economically or culturally downtrodden, that might be sufficient for them to gain leadership.

But my question is not how we deal with radical terrorism. It is how we use the tools we have to gradually broaden the community of those who are willing to dialog.

Of course as many have pointed out, just because we are willing to dialog, it doesn't follow that others will join us, especially our most ardent opponents. But some from the more liberal end of the spectrum might. And over time this erosion can expand.

It is my hope that what Jesus and Buddha and the Ghandi and Dalai Lama and Martin Luther King were teaching in their doctrines of love was that by acting out of love and respect toward those who disagree with us (and perhaps by being at least little bit less grasping in our economic policies), we can gradually enlarge the circle of dialog and erode the power base of the extremes.

Naive? Perhaps. Long-term? Of course! It will take a long time to overcome centuries of antagonism. But I think a course of action that accords with the highest principles of our faiths is preferable to either the status quo or World War III.

Namiste,
Dr. Free

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrFree

First let me apologize to participants in this forum. I seem to have kicked off the thread, and then dropped out of the discussion. Fortunately it went without me very well for a while.



Ruby, this is a late response, for which I am embarrassed.

For many years I have been a part of the Unitarian-Universalist Church, a Twentieth Century merger of the Unitarian and Universalists congregations. Both had a strong presence in 18th & 19th liberal religious thought in America, though Unitarianism itself traces back to 16th Century Transylvania.

A quip that suggests the essence of these faiths goes something like this: "Universalists believe that God is too good to damn fallen souls to Hell; Unitarians believe that they are too good to be damned." The essence of the Universalist faith in the 19th Century was universal salvation, everyone is saved.

I no longer style myself a unitarian. That word literally refers to the opponents of the trinitarian doctrine that ultimate swept orthodox Christianity. I'm not a unitarian not because I don't believe in a single god rather than a trinity or a plurality, but because I don't understand how to count gods. (Apologies for the compound negatives!)

I do believe in a form of universalism. I'm not sure I'm ready to say that everybody is saved. But I do believe that everyone has the opportunity and means of salvation within their own culture and religion, without having to import doctrines from elsewhere. You don't have to convert to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Juche or any other faith to be righteous, saved and beloved of God. The question is not which religion you belong to; it's what you do with the elements of faith your religion gives you.

Namiste,
Dr Free

I agree that what we are does not define us, but rather what we do.

[Dah-veeth]

Originally Posted by DrFree

It is my hope that what Jesus and Buddha and the Ghandi and Dalai Lama and Martin Luther King were teaching in their doctrines of love was that by acting out of love and respect toward those who disagree with us (and perhaps by being at least little bit less grasping in our economic policies), we can gradually enlarge the circle of dialog and erode the power base of the extremes.

You reminded me of this quote:

"They that are endued with sincerity and faithfulness should associate with all the peoples and kindreds of the earth with joy and radiance, inasmuch as consorting with people hath promoted and will continue to promote unity and concord, which in turn are conducive to the maintenance of order in the world and to the regeneration of nations. Blessed are such as hold fast to the cord of kindliness and tender mercy and are free from animosity and hatred." -Baha'u'llah

[DrFree]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I agree that what we are does not define us, but rather what we do.

Or as Dumbledore said to Harry, "It is not our abilities that make us who we are, but our choices."

[Dah-veeth]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Or as Dumbledore said to Harry, "It is not our abilities that make us who we are, but our choices."

Makes sense... we can choose to turn to God, the All-Powerful. On our own we are powerless.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by DrFree

Or as Dumbledore said to Harry, "It is not our abilities that make us who we are, but our choices."

I think you mean "actions", choices are nothing until acted upon yes?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Dah-veeth

Makes sense... we can choose to turn to God, the All-Powerful. On our own we are powerless.

...or else we are an atomic bomb, that wrecks havoc over everthing and everyone...

[DrFree]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I think you mean "actions", choices are nothing until acted upon yes?

Actually, no. The actual quote from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is:

It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.

And I think I agree: Choice, as I understand it, is not something we do in anticipation of action, something we may retract later. Rather it is our insertion of our will into the causal process. It is that part of the total sequence of events that is directly in our control.

Namiste.

[Dah-veeth]

Like a ship... you steer the ship, but you can't control the wind.

[DrFree]

Originally Posted by Dah-veeth

Like a ship... you steer the ship, but you can't control the wind.

Very apt. We make our choices individually, and they influence the future, but what ends up happening depends not only on our choices but on those of everyone else, as well as on what every other thing, living or not, happens to be doing at the time.

We are creators. Our choices do bring about the futhre. In that we are made in God's image. But none of us has an exclusive monopoly on that power. We are at most co-creators.

So our meta-choice, our choice about how to live in a world of creators, is whether to struggle to impose our own choices on everyone else, to give up and be led by others, or to engage in that dance of competition and cooperation that is life.

Come to think of it, that's the essence of the Serenity Prayer:

Give me the strength to change what I can;
the serenity to accept what I cannot;
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Namiste.

[wil]

One ship sails east and another sails west
With the self-same winds that blow.
Tis the set of the sail and not the gale
Which determines the way they go.
As the winds of the sea are the ways of fate
As we voyage along through life,
Tis the act of the soul that determines the goal,
And not the calm or the strife.



-Ella Wheeler Wilcox

[Dah-veeth]

Originally Posted by wil

One ship sails east and another sails west
With the self-same winds that blow.
Tis the set of the sail and not the gale
Which determines the way they go.
As the winds of the sea are the ways of fate
As we voyage along through life,
Tis the act of the soul that determines the goal,
And not the calm or the strife.



-Ella Wheeler Wilcox

"Give me the strength to change what I can;
the serenity to accept what I cannot;
and the wisdom to know the difference."

I like the poems! I've heard this last one... I mean, I've read it before. The last line is the hardest... "the wisdom to know the difference." I think that kind of wisdom takes a lot of patience... which reminds me...

"Having enjoined upon all men to observe wisdom, He Himself hath adhered to the cord of patience and resignation." -Baha'u'llah