I was reading a book last night by Sam Harris entitled "Letter to a Christian Nation" and part of the first half of the book really got me thinking about religion in a geographical context.

If you are a Christian and were born in the US (regardless of preciously where) I think it a fairly safe assumption that from the time of your birth you had access to or were brought up by biblical books/influences. Following that path you become a Christian and adopt some set of Christian beliefs. It's not that you aren't aware of other religions only that you believe Christianity and the claims of Jesus to be true. As such, you are skeptical (if not outright intolerant) of Islam. Considering you believe in the exclusive claims made in the Bible (primarily that the only road to salvation is through accepting Jesus and the sacrifice made on your behalf) you reject (even if passively) the claims made by the Qur'an.

Now, imagine that you are born in Saudi Arabia--move nothing else in your mind except for your place of birth. Instead of the Bible you are brought up on the teachings of the Qur'an. Again, and because you believe what you are reading you come to accept the teachings of the Qur'an and consider its exclusive claims to be sufficient to build a life around.

This hypothetical isn't hypothetical at all. It happens all the time. In the first case you have been born in a more Western culture. In the second, you are born in an area rich in Islamic teachings.

Now, this is not a post about extremes. This isn't one about Islamic suicide pilots or about Christians who, thinking that life is massively valuable, blow up abortion clinics. This is just about belief as it relates to culture and location.

What I find so interesting about it is that for the most part, Christians are atheists when it comes to Islam. Most do not believe in Allah (at least to the extent that the Qur'an denies Christ as the Son of the one "true" God.) Likewise, Muslims feel the same about Christianity. Furthermore, as a Christian, you feel as strongly that your view of God is correct as a Muslim does his/her own.

So, are beliefs based on truth (use this cased for the reference) or is truth based on being brought up with the teachings of one dogma to the exclusion of all others?

If Pat Robertson had been born in Syria, isn't it reasonable to believe that he would today be a vocal supporter of Islam? Would he have been exposed to Christianity in Syria in anything more than a cursory manner? Conversely if a Muslim cleric practicing Islam in Syria right now had been born in Dallas, TX, is there any reason to believe that he would not have adopted faith in Christ if he in fact had a propensity for faith to begin with?

Clearly here in America one can practice any number of religions. But the US is roughly 75% Christian. In Saudi Arabia the number of people who profess Islam is near 100%. They believe their religion to be true. You believe yours to be true. Both cannot be true as they contradict each other in massively important ways. One of the groups is going to heaven (according to the teachings) and one is going somewhere far less pleasant.

Is this really how God works? From a Christian perspective, is it really fair or reasonable to ask people who from birth have been exposed to nothing more than the Qur'an to accept Jesus as a personal savior?

Just curious.

-Drew

Very well said

I believe that too many Christians are bent out of shape about "saving people"

I think "God/Jesus/Holy Spirit" is Big enough to save people without having doctorine rammed down their throats.

God is also a LOVING god not condemning.(romans 8:1)

Christians are to live by example, Jesus loved and accepted people where they were in there walk.

All people have a right to believe what they want but if God shows Himself to you, Your life is forever changed, trust me, I know.
No matter where you started out, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc.

The real irony of it all is that these two religions (Islam and Christianity) are basically both founded on the same underlying folklore!

For all intents and purposes they are the same religion that fell apart into two major parts. Then split into diverging pathways. Now they are at each other’s throats prepared to kill for their respective ‘Gods’.

And most of the people who believe in either one of those two religions can’t even truly comprehend a pantheistic picture of God. If God isn’t perceived to be a personified dictator sitting on a throne in heaven making rules and passing judgments, then they think the whole concept of “God” would be meaningless.

The world may very well be headed to a religious confrontation between these two major religions. And on of the things that is going to guarantee that confrontation is the Christian’s need to proselytize (or “save” the world).

The greatest irony of all, is that it may very well be the Christian’s instance on ‘saving’ the world that will ultimately culminate into the destruction of humanity.

The Islamic nations will see the Christian proselytizing as nothing more than a threat to rape them of their beliefs. They will naturally defend themselves (even if that defense appears to take the form of offense in the form of suicide bombers).

I wonder how many people realize that this proselytizing war is already in motion on a very large scale? Christian organizations are aggressively pursuing the Internet to try to convert Muslims before their respective nations gain the cyber technology to defend themselves from the proselytizing campaigns.

This is causing extreme anxiety and desperation among Muslim nations.

Imagine how distraught Christians would feel if the tables were turned? They will claim that Muslims are actively proselytizing Islam, but no wonder!!! They're trying to defend against the agressive Christian proselytizing campaigns, the have no choice.

Can this really be what Jesus would want? An aggressive confrontation of religious views in his name?

I think not.

I think the teachings of most spiritual doctrines tend toward an effort to be loving and kind and do good and to encourage people to be kind and compassionate with each other.

Where they become warped is when man kind comes in and inserts their own idea or agenda of how to force compliance to the golden rule.

While religions try to show people the way to love, sometimes they fail when they try to force them down that path. It can't be done. You must go willingly to love. You must go willingly to God.

You cannot force people to love one another. You cannot pass it into a law.

There are many paths to love. All paths lead to God eventually.

None but the totally corrupt will loose their individual personality, (says the Urantia Book.) I tend to agree with that. We will be judged by our works says the Bible. I tend to agree with that.

Even lost causes, the totally corrupt will not cease to exist completely, their personality will be destroyed but their energy will simply be recycled.

To me, this sounds reasonable.

JB

Drew, you have stated what may be painfully obvious to some, but is most probably quite meaningless to those who should notice the wisdom behind what you have just said.

We can only speak of that which we know...

I rarely venture into this forum because of the vortex of stong feelings that surrounds most of the posts in here.

This thread has such a thoughtful and reasonable premise.

I think that either all of the world's religions are wrong, or they are all right. Even if they contradict one another, it seems possible to me that different groups were spoken to in different ways. There can't be only one true religion. The idea is preposterous.

Now THAT is an interesting perspective. Worthy of its own thread? Definitely worth discussing.

You may start it if you wish. I am not at home in this forum yet. Anyway, I am already on probation with the mods.

Oh you naughty girl! What did you do? Sic your pygmy goats on someone.



I don’t know why there can’t be. Perhaps you are thinking in terms of heavily dogmatic religions?

I see absolutely no reason why Pantheism (in it’s purest unadulterated form), can’t be the one true religion.

There is no dogma associated with it. In it’s purees unadulterated form all it says is that everything in the universe is one, and that everything is egalitarian in spirit.

There is no head honcho making the rules. The rules are self-evident. You respect all of life and all of nature with reverence. Any man-made laws that are required to conduct a civilized society should be based on this premise along with the practicalities of living in the physical universe.

This would still leave room for arguments. I’m not saying that it would be the perfect religion.

But it sure beats having religions that are trying to beat the laws of ancient societies down the throats of modern man.

At least Pantheism is basically saying, “Men must find their own wisdom among themselves”, and it gives as a fundamental basis that all life is egalitarian. This would denounce anything like fascisms based on race, or any other principles like that.

The problem is,…. how to bring a world that is already obsessed with fighting over ancient doctrines to start realizing that if they stop fighting over those doctrines and start actually appreciating life itself they might actually do something positive instead of continually inciting Holy Wars.

Pantheism can be ‘religious’ or ‘non-religious’. It doesn’t claim what God is. All it does is recognize that we are all children of the universe, and that we should revere our Mother Earth and our brothers and sisters on it (which includes all the animals). So those who want to believe in a mystic creator can do so, those who wish to be atheists can do so. Pantheism embraces them all. It just doesn’t dictate the rules of society. It leaves that up to man to do.

The problem with the ancient doctrines is that they are basically all political in that they claim that God made social laws. So those so-called religions basically reduce to nothing more than politics.

Pantheism has nothing to say about politics. It just says the world is all related and everyone is equal spiritually. Make all your social laws based on that single premise. No lists of religious commandments and/or judgments necessary.

Thanks to all who have responded. I am also pleased that it came across as thoughtful (to whatever extent) in that it was not my intention at all to start an argument. A debate of ideas--yes, but not something that would create unproductive conversational issues.

I don't know how to reconcile the claims made by Christianity and those made by followers of Islam. I picked those two religions because they are both monotheistic, but one could very easily substitute another belief system and use the same premise.

So the basic question that I have to those who believe in God is whether or not a person can be a Christian and another a Muslim and both--based on cultural circumstance--enjoy the promises of eternity that both religions claim are exclusive?

If not, how does one reconcile that with God?

I realize that we cannot "know" anything in that the only true way to know is to perish. I'm not stepping up to volunteer for that (and I hope none of you are either--at least right now) but I think it would be the epitome of smallness and cruelty if millions of people spent eternity in hell simply because they were exposed to and taught "truth" that does not level with or agree with the claims made by other faiths.

I think it would be tough for someone to die, reach the gates of eternity and have "God" say---"Well, I saw to it that you were born in a country where nearly everyone was Muslim, where from the time of your birth you were taught nothing but Islam, and in a place where practicing Christianity was just short of illegal but still, I hold you responsible for not practicing faith that includes giving yourself to my Son." The same could be reversed for a person born in Dallas, TX--who reached the same gates but was instead treated in a similar fashion by Allah.

Logic dictates that there is just know way a loving father could ever make that statement. And if that is true, if we agree to some extent on that then how can any one religion make claims that are exclusive, calling all others--wrong?

-Drew

Thanks Abra; another reason I don't post in here much is that my religious beliefs are ill-formed and fuzzy at best. But you are right, 100%, when you say I am referring to the heavily dogmatic religions of the world, as most of them are. I cannot believe that out of all of them, one happens to be right and the rest wrong. It just makes no sense to me.

And Pantheism is something I have never studied, but it sounds a lot like what I already believe. I know there is something out there but I don't believe it can be codified.

“Men must find their own wisdom among themselves”

Now THAT makes sense to me.

OH yes, my probation. I exaggerate, honestly; I don't think I am on probation but I have been warned repeatedly not to be so abrasive.

I have to watch what I say; which is why I like to avoid forums that spark controversy.

Drew,

I like you, as you should know by now...

But honestly, take it from me amd my experience in attempting to logically consider any notion of a judgemental deity who controls our destiny in the afterlife... the personification of 'God'...

Logic necessitates atheism...



Good to see you, my friend...

There isn’t a whole lot to study. At least not in it’s basic unadulterated form.

It’s simply the view that all is one. We are all children of the universe, or children of ‘God’ if you like. We came out of the universe. Out of planet Earth. Planet Earth is our ‘mother’ in that sense. Not to imply that the planet is a deity. But it’s clearly our ‘mother’ and our ‘home’ none-the-less.

We are living on ‘spaceship’ earth and it’s our job to maintain it. And all life that is on it is directly our kin.

That’s the pantheistic picture. There is no book that goes with it. In fact, if it’s taken much beyond that then it starts becoming dogmatic and chances are men are starting to make things up again!

If you’d like to have some insight into the pantheistic picture read the OP of the following thread,… and then scroll down and read the post by S1owhand about “The Pipe Ceremony”. These views are pantheistic in nature. Although this view speaks in terms of an almost godhead-like deity called Wankan Tanka, think of that as referring to nature herself (or the universe herself). And not a personified God.

http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/105569

(don’t forget to read the Pipe Ceremony), that really gives a good visual for the reverence the Indians had for the oneness of nature, and the connectedness of the physical and spiritual worlds.

That's basically all you need to know about Pantheism. It's not really a religion as much as a philosophical view of the essence of our nature.

I might add also the Buddhism and some other eastern religions are also pantheistic in their views, but they also tend to be a little more dogamtic (although not quite as political as the middle-eastern based religions).



Whew! Well, then I’m really glad I passed on your invitation to move in with you.

Well the offer is still open!

Pantheism as you have described it sounds basically like stewardship of planet Earth, which is really the only way to go, I think.

Thanks for the education.

And brotherly love.

this sounds like true spirituality to me. My observation is that rabidly religious people lack spirituality; which is one of the reasons I turned from religion. It seemed to have nothing to do with God and everything to do with rules.

I just wanted to backtrack here a second and just say that a LOT of people think this way.

They tend to think in terms of all the dogmatic religions. Most people really don’t even think in terms of something like the purest form of unadulterated (non-dogmatic) pantheism when they think of “religions”.

They usually view the concept of religion as having to do with an authoritarian Godhead who had a doctrine full of rules or traditions that must be followed.

So they really don’t even consider something as simplistic and truly spiritual as Pantheism in its purest unadulterated (non-dogmatic) form. So it never gets considered.

And Pantheism is not a proselytizing religion. There is no reason to proselytize Pantheism from a spiritual point of view.

However, there very well may be humanitarian reasons to try to at least try to educate people about what it is. Not to ‘convert’ them. But to at least get them to become aware that it’s a legitimate philosophy and/or spiritual choice.

God doesn’t need to be a fascist political dictator.


Note to the Author of this thread,…

I apologize if I’ve inadvertently hijacked your thread here. This is just where the conversation spontaneously wandered.

The God you speak of is one that makes sense to me. Finally.

I think I knew this all along but it hadn't coalesced into something with a name.

I have always had a disconnect with religion; I tried several of them and there was always a nagging feeling of "this can't be right". I tried going all the way to atheism and agnosticism but they didn't feel quite right, either.

I don't know the OP but he seemed like a young man who wanted to spark intelligent discourse. You gave him that.

On a side note...

I personally think pantheism is like a security blanket for those who are becoming more atheistic in belief...

Kinda like the Gerber cereals just before the real food...

No offense meant James...