Question is: Can a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian and non-believers get along as brothers despite the theological differences? If the answer is possibly yes, how? If the answer is no, need not answer.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
" Can Theological differences be set aside?"
- Thread starter look3467
- Start date
Why would you not want to hear it if the answer is no? Fundamentally, that is the answer: no. Most people on the planet believe that god has written a book. Regrettably, we have many such books, each claiming an exclusive infallibility, and people organize themselves into groups depending on which claims they accept. Sam Harris, in The End of Faith, puts it this way:
"All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: 'respect' for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses. While all faiths have been touched, here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all the others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed... Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one."
"All are in perverse agreement on one point of fundamental importance, however: 'respect' for other faiths, or for the views of unbelievers, is not an attitude that God endorses. While all faiths have been touched, here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenet of every religious tradition is that all the others are mere repositories of error or, at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed... Certainty about the next life is simply incompatible with tolerance in this one."
Well, in my opinion it would be quite simple for all the religions to live side by side in harmony.
BUT, they won't, as they are so narrow minded and intolerant of each other's beliefs, that they
have to butt in on one another, and point out the flaws that they see. I might not like theway
my neighbour landscapes his yard, but it is 'his ' yard, and his business, and I respect his right to do
things his way, and I will like him anyway, and be friends, and would hope that he would think the
same of me.
BUT, they won't, as they are so narrow minded and intolerant of each other's beliefs, that they
have to butt in on one another, and point out the flaws that they see. I might not like theway
my neighbour landscapes his yard, but it is 'his ' yard, and his business, and I respect his right to do
things his way, and I will like him anyway, and be friends, and would hope that he would think the
same of me.
Last edited:
Yes....in most cases, actually, I do think people of different theological backgrounds do get along perfectly fine. We just tend to hear about the cases where they don't. But, ya, for the most part, it doesn't really matter.
The no answer is the norm.
The yes answer is the exception.
The exception is what I want to focus on and with good reason.
The exception is that God accepts all souls believe it or not.
Not their behavior, but their souls.
That being the case than, all souls are as brothers. God united all souls in Jesus without the penalty of eternal annihilation.
Hence the term “Love your enemies”.
Prior to Jesus, that statement was not tolerable.
That is why Jesus was not accepted for that term was unreasonable.
I agree with you as to that being so, but the change in attitude to that of Jesus’ has somewhat taken root but slow to be understood and or exercised fully.
I am stating here and now as is my belief, that Jesus’ attitude accepts all souls for the purpose of salvation from the death penalty, but not from personal behavior.
Consequences for personal behavior is meted out here and now while in the earth.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
You say quite simple, in what way? I know respect is one way, but what I am looking for is the ingredient that causes us all to declare our views as more correct than others, thus causing divisions.
For example: if I say you won’t go to heaven unless you believe my way, or if you don’t belong to this church or that church you won’t stand a chance, or don’t believe in anything since anything is nothing in the end.
Those divisions are still very much alive because the underlying antidote has not been realized yet.
A few have picked up on it, but the rest have not. So, that is the reason for the slowness of its discovery.
I can accept anybody’s belief without raising a hair on my head because I understand the end result.
The end result is the salvation of all souls regardless of behavioral problems.
Behavioral problems are dealt with here on earth by humanity.
God corrects, directs and molds us with the use of humanity.
He deals directly with the heart of each soul while humanity applies corrective measures.
If one can believe that we all are brothers, than we have to love each other regardless of behavioral problems.
But if: we do not relate as brothers than anything goes.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
How far do you think you'd get advising a Muslim or Hindu to be more Christ-like? That's an example of exactly why the answer to the question you posed in the OP is no. You're speaking from the perspective of your creed and simply assuming it's the correct way to go. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others, cannot accept that and remain Jews, Muslims, etc., and they'll make exactly the same assumption about their creeds that you do about yours. And they have exactly as much evidence to justify that as you do.
More specifically, the answer to the question posed in your thread title is yes. All it would require is for everybody to renounce their religious beliefs. But that isn't going to happen, and you asked a different question in your OP, to which the answer, as you've just demonstrated, is no.
A long time ago we discussed on this forum how Christians, Jews, Muslims, and pagan Gypsies largely got along for several hundred years in Spain at the time of the Moorish rule. Thus, there is sufficient precedence for this ideal. All we need do is to follow their example, imperfect though it was.
Not very far!
That is absolutely right!
That’s correct!
You are correct on all counts.
But! You’re not seeing what I am trying to say because I am not conveying it very well.
Let’s assume that Jesus is for real the Son of God and did what He came to do; save that which was lost.
Lost being humanity, as a whole.
What difference would it make what belief structure there was since humanity as a whole was going to be saved?
If the saving part was taken out of the humanities responsibility, when then would humanity have to fuss about?
Now, if, I am saying if humanity got a hold of that information, then for what reason would there be to proclaim one’s religion as the correct one, when God had already taken care of the saving part?
It wouldn’t matter right?
But if Christ is not believed to be real, that we’re back to square one. (Divisions)
I don’t expect a Jew, Muslim Hindus, or Buddhists to convert to Christ, but that through their own beliefs, exercise the same principle which Christ laid out in loving thy neighbor as thy self.
Until that happens, I don’t see respect one for another, much less unity of spirit.
And if I espouse to be a Christian and exercise Christ’s principals in word and in action, that would prove to be a belief worth looking into.
A matter of example, judge me as per my beliefs.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
I believe you can, but not me. Why, because my life revolves around every breath of life given me of the word of God.
Not the life of the body, for that I already have, but the life in the spirit, which I have acquired.
So, it would be impossible for me not to give thanks, praise and worship to the God of my life whose image I hope to emulate.
So to accept all brethren regardless of belief would be to be as like God.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
This is making less and less sense to me. You appear to be telling me that Jesus has already done it all, and it doesn't matter what people believe, they're all going to be saved anyway. Whether they like it or not, it sounds like. So why are we even having this conversation? If the belief structure doesn't matter, you've wasted a lot of time and energy promoting your particular one here, and presumably elsewhere. But I don't believe that's what you meant, it's not consistent with everything else you've posted here. Actually I don't know why you called it a belief structure either. I presume its contents make some kind of difference as well, not just how you organize it.
But the point is that the belief structure and its contents do make a difference to those who have religious beliefs because, as Sam Harris observed in the bit I quoted in a previous post, religious belief divides people into opposing groups, with every member of each group believing all other groups are wrong. And not just a little bit, but surpassingly, egregiously, often dangerously and unforgivably, wrong. In order to be among the saved when the final trumpet sounds, part of the contents of your belief, according to everything else I've read of yours, must be what you stated as the initial assumption, that Jesus is for real the son of god and did what he came to do. In other words, if only everybody were Christian we wouldn't have these religious squabbles and wars terrorists and whatnot. But that's not true either. Catholics and Protestants ravaged Europe for centuries fighting each other, and they're still wanting to kill each other, and each other's children, in Northern Ireland.
So I really don't know what you mean, but I'm pretty sure that whatever it is, I won't agree with it.
Is there truly nothing else you're interested in enough to talk about here or in real life? That's certainly the impression I get from your posting pattern.
Getting along isn't the same as being equal, neither is the relative absence of persecution and forced conversions. There was indeed a Golden Age under a sequence of extraordinarily enlightened and tolerant (for their time) Moorish rulers, but it didn't last very long and only Muslims were full citizens in any meaningful sense. And only male Muslims at that. I don't think that's a good model at all, it depends too much on individual personalities rather than the rule of law and the consent of the governed.
I disagree with Sam Harris. Why shouldn't people of different faiths be able to get along? I don't believe in God, but I happen to have very close friends who are Jewish, Christian or Muslim. In Canada, we have just about every religion on earth, and for the most part, we all seem to get along.
The biggest flaw in Sam Harris logic (which says alot about Sam Harris, if this is how he thinks he's probably a dick) , is that he assumes that because you believe someone is wrong you can't tolerate them.
I believe a great many people are wrong about a great many things. I can still tolerate them, I can even still like them and spend time with them. I just believe they are wrong.
Likewise two different faiths, each believing the other to be wrong, can still get along. They just have to agree to disagree.
Doesn't that apply to any group?
Give me too much political power over you (power corrupts) and it won't be too long before the laws mysteriously point to me not paying taxes and you paying double.
Not to mention how I can demand you chauffer me around, and should the need arise..have you follow behind me clocking coconuts togethor while I pretend to ride a horse.
Give me too much political power over you (power corrupts) and it won't be too long before the laws mysteriously point to me not paying taxes and you paying double.
Not to mention how I can demand you chauffer me around, and should the need arise..have you follow behind me clocking coconuts togethor while I pretend to ride a horse.