IS INTERFAITH VIABLE?

[Shaunc]

Maybe we're all better off being good humans rather than trying to be good Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus,etc.
I'd love to find a religion that honoured both Buddha and Lao Tzu and Jesus but I can't but that doesn't mean that I can't be a good man.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

....Interfaith viability's main issue may not be what we think it is.
Let me explain. If we look at the Christian forum and the Buddhist forum on Spiritual Forums, a common theme 'raises her head'. Some people on each respective forum have 'members' that are polarized in each respective 'faith'...

I suppose there are a number of factors at play in this interfaith friction and conflict, but communication skills may indeed be one of, if not the, largest of them. More often then not we are all guilty of thinking improving our communication skills involves learning how to better express our ideas and concepts in ways that others can understand and that does not alienate them. But for communication to occur, there must be both giving and receiving. I expect that most of us need to spend more time learning how to receive. Learning how to listen with an open mind and heart, and give others thoughts and opinions due consideration. Even if, at least for the mean time, whatever gifts we are being given have to sit in the closet with the rest of Mom's presents until we realize they may have more value than we first gave them credit for. It is surprising the little gems I have found in the back of that closet, good thing I didn't throw them away way back when.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Well now, I think we are in danger of hijacking Big John’s thread and taking it on some sort of esoteric ride, so I will try to keep this oriented toward the original question…. somehow.

But I was on topic anyway by explaining how the symbolic structure is formed and showing that religion is a symbolic structure which is upheld by making the other against which it defines itself.

But first….one can say that real is undefinable, or alternatively one can simply define real as whatever is, as the perceiver perceives it, in the present moment....

The symbolic structure is internally defining, like up with a down, good with a bad etc., whereas the imaginary is structureless, like all up with no down, all good with no bad etc.
If, then, there was only the observable, there would be no religious structure whatsoever, because nothing of religion is observable in nature.

So yes, most, if not all things, can be seen through a dualistic perspective. One pair of opposites is those who believe this means that nothing has any inherent meaning and only has the meaning we perceivers give it, while others cannot quite reach this same conclusion. We could perhaps look at the symmetry in a dualistic pair....

We could get along if we didn't care about our beliefs, but people give religious beliefs a great deal of importance and are very attached to them, because it is not merely a belief system; it's something people identity with and as.

If any difference in belief leads to the the formation of an us and them which automatically dooms us to conflict, then perhaps it is not.

It's not the belief as such, but the identity attachment people as Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists and what have you.

Perhaps conflict is inevitable until we all safely arrive at the north star, if it even exists, but I don’t think that conflict is necessarily inherent in difference. Yes some will define an origin point and axis direction that we find aberrant and can not live with in harmony, so perhaps some conflict will always be at least potentially present. But I think it is up to us to understand that our origin point and defined axis directions are not necessarily the true ones, assuming we believe true ones exist.

Exactly.

Our good/evil origin and axis directions are just our approximation of the preferred or true frame of reference. Such an understanding may not eliminate interfaith conflict, but I think it would go a long way toward making things better. Of course if better or worse are just another pair of dualities, with no inherent truth, arbitrarily defined by us, then perhaps it doesn’t really matter at all.

Well, to me it does not matter because I'm not religiously identified, but a lot of people are... and to them it matters a great deal...

This concept that everything is dualisticly relative and therefore doesn’t matter (not saying this is your position) bothers me....

If people want peace they have to abandon ther religions and nations and other symbolic identity systems, then we'd just be people and not a whole bunch of different things like Christians Hindus and so forth or Americans and Australians etc. It's fine that we have the symbolic structures, but when we assume that as an identity there's trouble.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

We could get along if we didn't care about our beliefs, but people give religious beliefs a great deal of importance and are very attached to them, because it is not merely a belief system; it's something people identity with and as.

Most people become very defensive of their beliefs. For example of a belief: "What happens after death?"

All religious people, such as Hindus, Jews, Buddhist, Christians, Muslims, etc.... can not answer that question factually. They can only offer up a theory.

If a person realizes it is only a theory, how can there be a conflict? No one is 'right' nor 'wrong'.

If we put the theories in their proper place, there is virtually no other conflicts!

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Most people become very defensive of their beliefs. For example of a belief: "What happens after death?"
All religious people, such as Hindus, Jews, Buddhist, Christians, Muslims, etc.... can not answer that question factually. They can only offer up a theory.
If a person realizes it is only a theory, how can there be a conflict? No one is 'right' nor 'wrong'.
If we put the theories in their proper place, there is virtually no other conflicts!

If people did not take these theories, which are the religious stories, to be true, the religion would end. so I agree with you there would be no conflict in that case, but the price to be paid is the religion itself.

@BigJohn

"Most people become very defensive of their beliefs. For example of a belief: "What happens after death?"

Death is a very mortal fear, fear is very uncomfortable, it makes me want to find a place to escape and hide. How does one hide from a concept in ones mind such as death? If I find a belief to avoid such discomfort and fear of death, then I suppose any attack on that belief will make me rather uncomfortable. If I have a nice lazyboy recliner to watch my movie from, will I not resist if someone seeks to displace me into a kitchen chair. Of course not all beliefs are so consequential in the mind, yet there are many other beliefs surrounding and holding up that one. Perhaps when someone starts questioning my belief system, I just might feel it is best to nip things in the bud. ??

@Gem
Perhaps then, many religions can live in one house, only if they all have their own rooms. When we meet around the dinning room table, we must leave our religions back in their rooms. To eat in harmony, we discuss something other than our religions, IDK... maybe politics, or spirituality concepts. But I don't suppose one can call this interfaith harmony as the faiths are not interacting. In the end, religions are really just ideologies. We all have our personal ideologies and none of them completely match, and some are really quite different. When (if) we meet around the table to discuss our ideas, at least for the sake of the discussion, we become identified by the ideas we hold as truths. The problems arise not because our ideas differ, but because we start to accept those identities and defend them as if they really are our identities. We want to win, and for that, our ideas must win. Here I suppose we see the difference between discussion and debate. Debates seem to have a winner, while in discussions, everybody can win. The instinct to debate and defend seems to be a very natural human one. To win in a debate elevates us in our human societies, we gain rank and stature, and that translates into security. Yet like all wealth, our position in society will always need to be defended. Our hard won debating clout becomes something of envy for others. To win the heavy weight title one must defeat the champ. Our winnings from discussion on the other hand, go unnoticed, as none need to covet them. There is always plenty of bread and fish for everyone, no matter how many mouths there are to feed. Perhaps this is the difference between treasures of the earth and treasures of heaven. If we could all just learn how to discuss instead of debate, then we need not fight each other for our food, there will always be plenty, in all sorts of varieties, for everyone.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

If people did not take these theories, which are the religious stories, to be true, the religion would end. so I agree with you there would be no conflict in that case, but the price to be paid is the religion itself.

This issue goes deeper than religious stories?


For example: "What is the Buddhist viewpoint of what happens after death - is it a theory or is it taught as a fact?"


The point I am emphasizing is that which causes conflict between religions and even within each religion are theories. If we could only acknowledge this, we would see there is not much difference in each religion.

If a person is asked "What happens after death?"

and they answer: "I do not know. But my religion, speculates ......." This would keep us on common ground.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

This issue goes deeper than religious stories?
For example: "What is the Buddhist viewpoint of what happens after death - is it a theory or is it taught as a fact?"

It is taught as a fact.

The point I am emphasizing is that which causes conflict between religions and even within each religion are theories. If we could only acknowledge this, we would see there is not much difference in each religion.
If a person is asked "What happens after death?"
and they answer: "I do not know. But my religion, speculates ......." This would keep us on common ground.

If that were the way it was, religion would fade away, so I agree we'd be on common ground, but if things like 'jesus is messiah' 'Mohammud is prophet', 'the commandments were given by God' or 'Buddha was the enlightened one' were simply some sort speculation there'd be no religion. People have to believe it is true for the religion to work, and invest their whole self into it, identify with it, not just give credence to a theory, but be a Christian. Muslim, Buddhist ect ect ect ect. Without that identification the religion is ended and nothing to identify with. The symbol and the identity go hand in hand. I agree if people were not dogmatic there'd be no problem, but there'd also be no religions to coexist'. That would be a good thing, a simple solution, but reality is, people are not gong to give up their religions, and when push comes to shove, they'd kill and die to uphold the theories and their own identities. Religion needs that kind of fervour to survive.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Gem

If that were the way it was, religion would fade away, so I agree we'd be on common ground, but if things like 'jesus is messiah' 'Mohammud is prophet', 'the commandments were given by God' or 'Buddha was the enlightened one' were simply some sort speculation there'd be no religion. People have to believe it is true for the religion to work, and invest their whole self into it, identify with it, not just give credence to a theory, but be a Christian. Muslim, Buddhist ect ect ect ect. Without that identification the religion is ended and nothing to identify with. The symbol and the identity go hand in hand. I agree if people were not dogmatic there'd be no problem, but there'd also be no religions to coexist'. That would be a good thing, a simple solution, but reality is, people are not gong to give up their religions, and when push comes to shove, they'd kill and die to uphold the theories and their own identities. Religion needs that kind of fervour to survive.

In Buddhism: what happens after death?

A lot of Buddhist beliefs are devoted to that subject but yet is any of it factual?

Can a Buddhist still be a Buddhist but also acknowledge "This is what we believe but for all practical purposes, we can not prove one iota?"

I would say "Yes!"

[sky]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

In Buddhism: what happens after death?
A lot of Buddhist beliefs are devoted to that subject but yet is any of it factual?
Can a Buddhist still be a Buddhist but also acknowledge "This is what we believe but for all practical purposes, we can not prove one iota?"
I would say "Yes!"

Kalama Sutta gives the answer....