Do you believe all religions are truly one and the same?

Frank - oops! Sorry about that!

To all - sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone with my earlier post. I just felt it was all getting stuck on one train of thought and I've seen that ruin a forum before. I apologise if I was premature.

No problem, Seeker.

Just wanted to be sure we were on the same page.

This is an interesting discussion.

Keep going.

When going back to the original question of is every religion the same, we see there are thousands or even millions of religions on this Earth. So it is pretty hard to conclude that they are all the same. As a matter of fact, I don't think they are all the same. There is too much of differences between them.

But I also think that those who believe in the One God, and worship Him alone, are very close just because of their belief in this.

Qkid

Does "close" mean murdering each other? :wink:

The number of religions practiced by humans is more than one, but almost certainly less than millions. There once were more, but the Abrahamic group has done a pretty good job of driving others into extinction.

Here are what I think of as the root religions that still exist:

Abrahamic .... Judaism (Hasidic, Orthodox, Reform, etc.), Christianity (Eastern orthodox, Catholicism, Protestant, New Prophets, etc.), Islam (Shia, Suni, etc.). Abrahamic religions make up the great majority of the world's religious followers.

Hinduism ... Hinduism is the umbrella for that complex worship of gods native to India, the principles being Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. Anyone born Indian is presumably Hindu, so Hinduism is one of the major religions of today's world. Only recently has there been enough conversions to Hinduism to note. Typical of Religions that sprang from Hindu roots are Buddhism and Jain. These religions, and others like them, have wider appeal and have found large communities of converts outside the Indian Sub-continent. Buddhism largely retains it's Indian philosophical foundations, but has acquired many cultural trappings of those countries where it has been transplanted. When the offspring of Hinduism are added to it's natural numbers, it is has the second largest religious following in todays world.

Chinese ... I categorize Chinese religions as being of a single root because they all grew out of a single cultural identity. Our understanding of primitive Chinese religion is sketchy, but it was probably very conservative and strong on fatalism. Confucism, which dates to around the 6th century BCE, was the cental "religion" until 1948. Confucism stresses finding and maintaining harmonious relationships within the family, the village/province/nation, and the universe. The conservative nature of Confucism emphasized respect for the past, and one's ancestors. Duty was the foundation for behavior.

The other native branch of Chinese religion is Taoism. Actually, there are three sorts of Taoism. First, is the philosophical Taoism based largely on the Tao-te-Ching of Lao Tze. Lao Tze, if he existed as a historical figure, also lived during the 6th century BCE. The second form of Taoism gave rise to alchemy and the search for esoteric formulas that would give the practitioner immortality and magical powers over the physical universe. The fortune-telling aspect of Chinese culture found much of its latter expression with these Taoist priests. The third from was State Taoism that dictated the ceremonial responsibilities and duties of the Emperor to assure peace, prosperity and plenty.

As I've indicated above, Buddhism came into China and acquired many Chinese cultural ornaments. The Chinese are traditionally very willing to "mix and match" religions. Islam entered China over the Silk Road and even today there are almost certainly crypto-muslims living Northern China. Christian missionaries were virtually imposed by colonialistic European and American efforts to control Chinese markets. There was some notable successes in those missionary efforts. The Tai-Ping Rebellion was founded on the Messianic claims of a Chinese mystic.

Though the Chinese Communists have done their best to eradicate all religions within China, they have only been partially successful. Because of the secretive nature of religion within China, it is impossible to judge how many followers still exist there for any religion. Chinese ways have always had a major impact on other East Asian cultures and religions.

That brings us to the fourth set of root religions still existing ...

Shamanism ... Shamanistic religions have in common the worship of the power and essence of the natural world. Often sympathetic magical rituals are followed to insure fertility, strength, and prosperity. This was the native religion of Korea, prior to the introduction of Buddhism. Along the southern borders of China, Shamanism was still quite strong as late as 1945, and persisted among the more remote mountain people right up into the Vietnam war. The most sophisticated of Asian Shamanistic religions is the shintoism of Japan. Various mytholgical gods and goddesses thought to be responsible for the creation of this world are "honored" by fixed rituals that are intended to insure the success of their followers.

Shamanism still exists in many remote areas of the world. In the jungles of Africa and South America Shamanism still thrives. Santaria is a hybrid form that mixes Shamanism with elements of Abrahamic religion, and can even be found in large urban American cities. The native religion of the American Indians is fundamentally Shamanistic, and is probably as stronger today than it was fifty years ago. Within the Pueblos of the Southwest the Kachina Cult is still alive and well, though largely unseen and unappreciated by the surrounding Anglo-Mexican culture that dominates the Southwest.

Abrahamism, Hinduism, Shamanism, and Chinese religions each are distinct and fundamentally different in the way they define the universe and their place within it. Abrahamic religions tend to see the universe as finite (with a beginning and end), created by an outside omnipotent deity with human-like qualities.

Hinduistic religions tend to see the universe as infinite (without beginning or end, though made up of cycles of creation and destruction), with gods who have limited powers over different aspects of nature, and most accept that reality is more, or less, illusory. Buddhism and Jainism deny the existence of any god, or individual soul.

Chinese religions traditionally sought to either maintain the imagined perfect balance of relationships that existed in the Golden Age, or to manipulate nature by magical formulae. The earliest Chinese religion was almost certainly Shamanistic, but it became very sophisticated by the 6th century. As other religions (Buddhism, Islam and Christianity) were transplanted into China, an amalgam of doctrines and dogma tended to develop among the masses of common people.

Shamanism is fundamentally about controlling, or placating, natural forces often personified by some sort of deity or demon. Magical rituals to encourage the desired results are common. Seldom is there a single god, and the nature of the universe is generally not categorized as either finite, or infinite, but rather a force, or forces so awesome that Man can only perform the expected rituals and hope for the best.

Within these four root religions there are many schools, sects, and divisions, but they all are based on the same fundamental notions about the world we live in.

Well, I will acknowledge that many do share the delusion that they can know there is but One God -- and that the God either wants to be worshipped or should be.

I have no idea if there is a God or not -- but I cannot think of anything more insulting to any God that might exist than to suppose It wants to be worshipped -- or that It should be.

Asherman

Nice synopsis !

Maybe you could have a go at defining "religion" itself. i.e. what do your four groups have in common ?

They are all attempts to make the unknowable known. They all try to define how an individual relates to himself, other sentient beings, and the Universe/Nature. The views of the Abrahamic group are familiar to all. Hinduism's more philosophical approach that the universe is infinite illusion is the counterweight to Abrahamic approaches. The Chinese forms take a middle-path that strikes a balance between folk beliefs and those thinking is more sophisticated. The Middle-Kingdom religions also strike a balance between the social relationship part of religion, and the mystical, or universal relationship. Shamanism leans much more heavily at trying to influence the natural order and emphasizes the mystical experience of a dream-questing human bridge between the mundane and the universal.

The distinction between religion and philosophy is not always clear. Most philosophers also deal with explaining the nature of things, and relationships. Abrahamic and Shamanistic religions are pretty clearly more "religion" than "philosophy". On the other hand, Hinduism and Chinese forms are much more closely related to the rationalism one generally finds in philosophy rather than the emotional approach of Abrahamic and Shamanistic religions.

BTW, in retrospect I think I would change the order I used above. A more correct order would probably be: Abrahamic, Hindu, Shamanistic, and Chinese approaches. The Chinese category, though basically is Confucism and Taoism is sort of a mixture and reconciliation of different sorts of philosophical foundations. The Chinese category should also include some modern Western forms that do not easily fit into the more common first three root religions.

With your background, I'd be interested in hearing your own take on these matters.

Asherman,

(1)"To make the unknowable known".

I agree this is a key issue and for me "knowledge" is "the need to predict/retrodict". We are speaking here of the cognitive construct we call "time" in which lies the mystery and overwhelming enormity of an individual's "prebirth" and "afterlife". Religion functions as a meaningful cocoon against the possible futility of "existence".

(2) "Relationship to self and other sentient beings"

Yes the feeling of a unique individual existence is evaluated against the existence of others and the "do unto others..." basis of morality is tangible evidence for this. However since our empathy seems to be limited in magnitude this aspect of religion is too often corrupted into
de facto selection of which beings are worthy of deserving empathy. Hence religion becomes the rationality behind primitive tribalism.

(3)I would add a third aspect which I would call "externalistic" i.e. that which we call "religion" is believed to be authoritative and transcendent of the existence of humanity.

Thus "religion" and "philosophy" could be said to differ in all three aspects i.e.

(1) Epistemologically, philosophy questions notions of truth, time, and control which are axiomatic to "religion" ( but not to "spirituality")

(2) Philosophy investigates "existence" and the existential status of "self" and "others"

(3) Philosophy questions dualities and the implies the "external" is merely a complimentary conjoint of the "internal".

I think your four categories are potentially convergent at a "mystical level" which taken to its limit might lead to a common form of "spirituality", but such levels are opaque to most followers and irrelevant to their social and psychological needs.

Hmm, I'm surprised you guys didn't mention the self-granting of immortality. It has a powerful allure.

Craven,

My first and third points about "existence before and after this life" and "reality external to human existence" encompass "immortality".

Indeed, I should probably have read (as opposed to glossed over) your post before asserting what it lacked.

What did you guys do? Get so bored with each other
you just curled up and died or something. YAWN!!!!!!!
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz Ahhhhhhhhh ZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzAhhhhhh
hhhhhZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. The contention of the revelant
is that the function of the infinite illusion driven by the
existance of evaluation often is dirived from the contention
of ones focus on the philosophy of meaningful nothingness
in the fathoms of disfunctional thought based on the moral
tangible evidence that does not exist outside of a driven need to express what is limited to the magnitude of philosophical foundation of convergent empathy and irrelevant rationality of complimentary externalistic provocation to the tangent of the platitude of rational though. Simply put, it is neither those in the round or the square, but those in the spiral that reach the top of the stairs.

ZzzzzzzzAhhhhhhhZzzzzzzzzzzAhhhhhhhZzzzzzzzzzzzzz

z man. Not bored, just waiting for someone t come along and make a fool of himself.

Present!

Hey Steve, Joe Nation, Gautam and I had a meet in NYC on Monday. Your name came up from the London meet.

Sure would like to get back to London.

Gee, 41 double ought, I'm sorry. I could have sworn I was
continuing the THREAD.

Proverbs 26:4
Answer not a fool according to his folly. lest
you also be like him.

The next verse is:

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly.

Frank you know about that time my ears started to glow. Wondered what it was. Any time you are in London, give me (us) a shout.

Was Gautam looking as affluent as usual ? Pity I missed it.

Looking like he was rolling in dough and good spirits -- as were all three of us.

Hope to get to Ole Foggy one day soon.

I'll be sure to let you know.

Actually ZZee its 41 double oh. Thats the correct pronunciation. As in double oh seven, my fellow British secret agent. But you weren't to know so (that knoh not knought) no hard feelings. Now its all getting a bit difficult as I don't have my Bible to hand, but Craven might be onto something.