Differing congregations.
 

Looking at "beliefs" in a general sense--and including philosophies.( For the sake of ease of typing notated as b's and p's)

Some are personal, perhaps private b's and p's, perhaps unspoken, perhaps evident only in the behaviour of that person.

Some are shared, and if so--and arguably in all such cases-- the effect of that sharing is to draw together a group, a congregation.

The power of b's and p's to draw together such congregations is a unifying power, and as such has been, and continues to be, an important component in the provision of social cohesion within social groupings.

However, when b's and p's differ and arguments arise concerning the validity of different b's and p's, what is it which is really being protected by arguments which seek to validate one b's and p's seemingly at the cost of invalidating the b's and p's of a different congregation?

Do we perhaps lose sight of the spirit of oneness which differing b's and p's may have as part of their core simply because that aspect is illustrated, put across, imagined, characterised etc. in a manner and by means which are different to the manner and means which are used to illustrate, put across, imagine, characterise the b's and p's of which we are ourselves followers?

Are we perhaps too fearful of loosing an established identity and forget and forego the very power of congregation because we cannot or will not see beyond our "own" b's and p's?


My attempts to put these thoughts into words are floundering, and in any case not applicable to b's and p's which do not have a sense of a spirit of oneness at core. Hoping that others may be able to be more lucid.

Edited:
Very wordy for me to follow...I whittled it down to 3 questions which in themselves were still very wordy...for ME.
#1. What is being protected? - ego. The fear, (fear is from the ego), they could be wrong --basing so much ON their beliefs.
"Oh no! Could my house be built on sand?"...and my church!?
So their lack of maturity and lack of rock solid personal exp is exposed.
2. Yes.
3. Yes

This is why I do not care for blind faith/belief and speculation, called philosophy, (intellectual mind candy).

When a person has a direct experience of the Divine...it makes no difference what anyone else believes or theorizes....
you remain at peace.
Leaving people to float their boat any way they want, wishing them well.
No arguments, nothing to protect, nothing to fear. Voila!

Summary - Beliefs and philosophies are so inferior to simply knowing directly.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Miss H. Thoughts about how the OP seems to you and also thoughts on the topic. Cheers.---stumbling on.

uniting b's and p's
 

This is challenge to human intellect. Differences are at GROSS / SUPERFICIAL level and NOT at the CORE level e.g. if one looks at it carefully. e.g.

Though the religions have different narrative for after-life , there is overwhelming unanimity that there is after-life

Though every tradition's ethical teachings are worded bit different, their ethical teachings are similar by and large

So merely focussing on differing P's and B's at a shallow level (dress code , prayer,festivals , language etc) is mere disservice to one's own faith .
Certainly we loose the sight of oneness and we do more disservice to our own religion. We also forget that today's societies are more heterogenous and religion has a broader function to guide/inspire people towards positive activity (than doing classroom level arguments) and that religion itself has lot to improve (from dogma ,superstitions , follies , frauds and ignorance)

Certainly people may have fears . But these fears can very well be allayed believing in and showing a unified greater identity which is very well appreciated in the light of core spiritual beliefs .

Hello Hitesh. Hope you are well.

A question which may have some bearing upon what is actually being protected when proponents of different b's and p's seek to assert the validity of their "own" b's and p's as opposed to the b's and p's of others could be constructed sthg like:---

How comfortable are we---generally speaking--- with being thought "incorrect"--that is to say, in the eyes of others ? (As distinct from the practical consequences of being "incorrect"? --hoping to have made that distinction clear)

If the answer is, again--broadly speaking--that being thought "incorrect" causes us to feel uncomfortable, then why is that the case?

Is this a trivial and inconsequential question?

this question goes to the core of humanity, IMO.

IMO we want as many people on our own 'side' as possible. we want acceptance for who we are, from others... being seen as being 'incorrect' can be uncomfortable because the more people who believe that about a person, the more at odds he will be with others, and noone wants that.

this has nothing to do with the fact as to whether the judgement of someone being incorrect is itself correct in any objective sense, and everything to do with people relating to one another...

going along the same lines as in my last post, i think it reasonable to assume that people feel threatened when their known way of getting social acceptance from others is threatened. Alternate b's and p's are threatening because they don't let you just go along the same road you have always gone along, if you were to buy into them you would have to change your ideas around, which means the people who give you acceptance now might not continue to agree with you, and you don't know where you would get acceptance from if they did dump you so you are scared and just want to fight off change so you can keep what known things you've got.

in addition to that, many people put a lot of effort into selecting and validating their b's and p's... to just abandon them for something else would be difficult because of the investment.

Besides, apparently some people like fighting, and this 'threat' gives a good excuse to do just that even if it means nothing else to them...

inter-operability for greater purpose
 

Heterogenous systems are not a new thing in this world . We are different by religion , race , geography , political ideologies ,economic status ,occupational group etc . But still we combine and evolve inter-operability to achieve a greater purpose .

You can see this in the example of software technologies .We have plethora of OS , databases , program technologies , ERPs , browsers each having big intricate web of working rules of their own . There have been people who have not learned anything beyond one technology in their life times . And that is perfectly ok . However still to enrich the lives of consumers, all heterogenous technologies combine and evolve inter-operability framework . And as a result we can see digital revolution in our day to day life. It is also a fact that the platforms/technologies which dont evolve , gets thrown out also fast .

Coming to our question on religion - Religion does provide an identity and security . And there is nothing wrong . There should be no effort to take that away.

But besides identity provision religion also does and have to do is
1. provide inspiration to people to be good and do good
2. Evolve a harmonious way of living in today's heterogenous multi-lingual , multi-racial , multi-faith societies.
3. remove / improve unscientific / shady / bad /lazy elements in one's own faith
4. remove superstitions/dogma in one's own faith.

This I would call the CORE function and identity provision an ANCILLARY function . e.g. When we travel by aircraft from say Mumbai to NY , the CORE function of aircraft company is to carry me safely with reasonable speed from one continent to another jumping various seas,valleys and mountains .At the same time it has lot of ANCILLARY functions like maintaining air pressure,air temperature , providing snacks/food ,inflight-entertainment / gaming etc.
And if the CORE function is not done properly all ANCILLARIES can not stand on its own.

Just the way interoperability among heterogenous IT systems lets us create wonderful experiences and do mammoth task in a jiffy with extreme ease , open mindedness beyond one's faith definitely has great potential to create wonderful experiences .

Just the head of govt in one country is called Prime minister and in another country -President . It simply does not matter . We have enough diplomatic protocols to handle such differences . So why such thing should matter in religion when some say "son of god" / some say "prophet of God " / some say "God itself" for the same element . There is ample room for commonality & better exchanges .

So coming to your question - Is identity conflict a trivial or inconsequential question ? I would say no . It is an important issue . But at the same time I say it can be handled nicely without impairing security/identity and there are far more important considerations calling for attention and action .

Hello Hitesh and all.

An observation:---

Allegory is an illustrative method which seeks to illustrate to us a perceived reality, and can be a powerful means of doing so---so long as we readers, listeners, observers etc. remain aware of the allegoric nature of the illustration.

If, however, we loose sight of the allegoric nature, the result may be that we readers, listeners, observers etc. take the allegoric to actually be that perceived reality.

The result of this may be that we readers, listeners, observers become immersed in "competing" allegories pertinent to different times, different circumstances, different customs and cultures etc.

And the nature of a reality common to us all becomes shrouded and overwhelmed by our attention being absorbed into that "competition".

Hi wearaunity
Welcome ur observation n opinion. Appreciate your concerns about competition. Competition has its advantages n disadvantages. But its all pervasive n very difficult to evade/avoid.