Consensus on God: can all religions agree on meaning of universal Truth/Justice?

[emilynghiem]

This thread is to organize ideas and points leading to a consensus on what God and Jesus mean, that will be universally agreed upon by people of all views.

I especially invite Hollie and IrishRam, Avatar and FoxFyre, KosherGirl and Gracie
to post a description of where you are and your backgrounds, and ask your help to moderate.

Anyone who has an issue with something you do not believe can be resolved, please post it here! And if we can find two people to co-mediate both sides, I'd like to see if we can resolve whatever issues are preventing reconciliation and reaching an agreed understanding.

If you have ideas or issues to post, please label A B C etc at the top of your post.

My views are

A. that names or aspect of God are diverse including God meaning:
Wisdom
Life
Unconditional Love
Universal Truth
Good Will
Greater Good for all Humanity
So many religions may focus on different aspects of God to worship
or even secular humanists, nontheists/atheists may believe in Truth/Justice WITHOUT attributing this universal principle to a personified deity or God as source of all life/truth.

So one step in the process is aligning the values we do have in common or equivalents.
And the Trinity in various religions is one way of expressing how we frame those concepts/values. this is even reflected in psychology as body/mind/spirit or superego/ego/id.

Do you agree these things can be reconciled while remaining different? Why do believe or not believe people can agree all these ways point to the same Source/God?

B. that the ability to reconcile across different systems is not so much a matter of the system
but whether the people AGREE to forgive differences and focus on points shared in common.

So the "forgiveness factor" is the key to whether people and views can be reconciled or not.

I believe a consensus on God can be reached first by bringing together reps from different views who DO AGREE to forgive differences and resolve the issues at hand to unite the groups they come from; and then in the process to help the others who haven't fully forgiven each other to work through and resolve the issues preventing them from forgiving.

Do you agree with this approach? Do you have examples or references of groups/programs already doing this work successfully?

Which groups/issues do you believe will or will not work for this process?
If you have threads, links, references or any other things to post related
to why this consensus process will or will not work, please post under "B."

C. One area where I feel WOULD bring together the nontheists and science
with the theists and practices of faith, is the field of "spiritual healing."

I believe science/medicine can prove the existence of negative energies causing
demonic voices/obsessions and technology can perfect means of measuring
and diagnose degrees or stages of criminal illness as well as treatment and cure.

If you have opinions, links, information, resources or references for or against spiritual healing can you post that here under "C"?

So these are the three areas I would like to focus on
in order to organize resources, people and groups to form a consensus
on
(A) the meaning of God (and the trinity in all religions/laws), the key impact
(B) influence of mutual forgiveness and correction vs.
unforgiveness and projection on the reconciliation process
(which is important also in our political democratic process that depends on this
level of communication to form consistent policies representing/reflecting all interests
and beliefs equally instead of politicizing religious views and bullying back and forth)
(C) the study and proof of spiritual healing to bring together faith and science
instead of a false division, and to reform our social and political institutions by proving that mental and criminal illness can be cured methodically by treating spiritual causes of ills equally as treating the mind and body as well (where none of the methods reject others).

Thank you and please post if you have
either ideas, objections or points on A B or C.

Or if you would like to offer help to co-moderate
please state your position and background
and what things you would most like to help to reconcile
you believe are preventing humanity from realizing our true potential.

Thank you very much!
Yours truly,
Emily

 

[Oldguy]

What are you looking for? A universally accepted religion?

Good luck with that. You're not going to find any way to bridge the differences in Christianity and Islam. One accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and one the Trinity and the other categorically rejects it. Nor will you get many Christian's to agree with Jews that Jesus was not the promised Messiah. These are fundamental concepts which cannot be discarded or agreed away.

 

[emilynghiem]

What are you looking for? A universally accepted religion?

Good luck with that. You're not going to find any way to bridge the differences in Christianity and Islam. One accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and one the Trinity and the other categorically rejects it. Nor will you get many Christian's to agree with Jews that Jesus was not the promised Messiah. These are fundamental concepts which cannot be discarded or agreed away.

Hi Oldguy: no, the point is to work WITH the given systems as is.
like the several states all under one law of the nation but remaining sovereign under
their respective local laws and leaders. we don't necessarily convert from TX or CA law
to Constitutional law, but we make sure to reconcile any conflicts so we can follow both.

And there are ALREADY people reconciling Muslim/Christian
or Jewish/Christian etc.

the Messianic Jews are a denomination under the Southern Baptist Convention

so why not a denomination just for Muslim/Christians.

I have Muslim friends who are faithful to the teachings in Islam to
follow the Jewish Torah, Christian Scriptures and Muslim Quran.
All that is missing is to finish reconciling in Christ
and you're right some may choose to drop Islam after that
some may bring Christ into Islam.

The point is to resolve conflicts and then see what happens after that.
not to judge just because we don't think it will happen
cus there's already people who have reconciled this
within their own families or communities and we just need to share more of the same.

Thanks for replying!

 

[Oldguy]

What are you looking for? A universally accepted religion?

Good luck with that. You're not going to find any way to bridge the differences in Christianity and Islam. One accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God and one the Trinity and the other categorically rejects it. Nor will you get many Christian's to agree with Jews that Jesus was not the promised Messiah. These are fundamental concepts which cannot be discarded or agreed away.

Hi Oldguy: no, the point is to work WITH the given systems as is.
like the several states all under one law of the nation but remaining sovereign under
their respective local laws and leaders. we don't necessarily convert from TX or CA law
to Constitutional law, but we make sure to reconcile any conflicts so we can follow both.

And there are ALREADY people reconciling Muslim/Christian
or Jewish/Christian etc.

the Messianic Jews are a denomination under the Southern Baptist Convention

so why not a denomination just for Muslim/Christians.

I have Muslim friends who are faithful to the teachings in Islam to
follow the Jewish Torah, Christian Scriptures and Muslim Quran.
All that is missing is to finish reconciling in Christ
and you're right some may choose to drop Islam after that
some may bring Christ into Islam.

The point is to resolve conflicts and then see what happens after that.
not to judge just because we don't think it will happen
cus there's already people who have reconciled this
within their own families or communities and we just need to share more of the same.

Thanks for replying!

There are lots of us who have reconciled any differences we have with followers of different faiths on a personal level. It's called tolerance (a commodity in short supply). But, there can be no reconciliation of fundamental doctrines without those things which we profess to believe being discarded.

For instance, there can be no Islamic-Christian denomination because the differences are simply unbridgeable. Either Jesus is the Son of God or He's not. For a Muslim to accept that He is makes him no longer a Muslim and vice versa for a Christian. The two faiths can coexist as neighbors, but not as a joint faith.

Nearly every faith has an element of exclusivity (decidedly so for the three biggest mono-theistic faiths) and that simply cannot be wished away. You're not just dealing with human perceptions, but different people's understanding of God.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi OG and thank you for elaborating.
So by tolerance, I think your answer points to B that the factor is forbearance or
forgiveness of differences.

However, what I mean by the reconciliation process, the beliefs are not compromised but accommodated. For example, if my friends and I do not see the divinity or humanity of Christ the same way, if we both agree to follow the process of "Restorative Justice"
(even using secular civil or natural laws including scientific method) then I recognize that is the same thing as receiving the spirit of Christ Jesus. So we do not change our beliefs or systems, just agree how to follow them consistently with each other to resolve conflcits.

There are lots of us who have reconciled any differences we have with followers of different faiths on a personal level. It's called tolerance (a commodity in short supply). But, there can be no reconciliation of fundamental doctrines without those things which we profess to believe being discarded.

For instance, there can be no Islamic-Christian denomination because the differences are simply unbridgeable. Either Jesus is the Son of God or He's not. For a Muslim to accept that He is makes him no longer a Muslim and vice versa for a Christian. The two faiths can coexist as neighbors, but not as a joint faith.

Nearly every faith has an element of exclusivity (decidedly so for the three biggest mono-theistic faiths) and that simply cannot be wished away. You're not just dealing with human perceptions, but different people's understanding of God.

As for your explanation about Muslims and Christians this is a very key critical issue that does need to be addressed!

I have Muslim friends who have reconciled with their Christian families and some have not.

I have a friend who considers himself both Muslim and Christian (also Buddhist and Pagan) but objects to Islam as not being universal but only recognizing Jews/Christians/Muslims
and not recognizing Buddhism or other teachings I guess Constitutional law also
as given by God while I interpret Islam to include all things sent by God.

I think the difference is that whether Muslims or Atheists or Buddhists etc. do not recognize the divinity of Jesus; these people (even those claiming to be Christian such as Jehovah's witnesses who may not see Jesus except as a spiritual teacher not the law of God embodied incarnate) of differing denominations are actual secular Gentiles under natural laws, so that we can still reconcile by sticking with natural laws and applying the concept of Jesus or equal justice to that realm of laws and reach agreement in truth.

I have better success addressing such people by invoking the spirit of Jesus Christ or Restorative Justice under 'natural laws' and then using our free speech/right to petition and due process to resolve any differences in faith or religion we may have under that.

Does this change your perception to know there are Muslim/Christian outreach websites and groups that have successfully reconciled (such as friends who recognize the divinity and miracle of Jesus, while continuing to follow the Islamic cultural traditions of their family they were brought up with)?

Does it help you see that reconciliation is possible since I do know individuals who have resolved these issues for themselves, even if other people haven't fully resolved their issues with them, or are still in process.

Can you explain OldGuy why you would put the conflict of people who haven't resolved Muslim/Christian issues BEFORE the people's beliefs who HAVE resolved these; wouldn't you think the people who worked out their issues might have some insights closer to God's universal truth to be able to explain and reconcile both at the same time? Why not look into those ways and see how they did it, and if those answers make more sense?

My guess is that if you and others haven't forgiven these conflicts, then it limits the perception that reconciliation is possible. I happen to see various ways of either reconciling them or not; so that's why I have seen it is possible, or people have done it, or are in process of resolving things and just need to take it a step further. Even if it would radically change Islam to totally reconcile with Christ, that is good, too. At least it would fulfill the teachings that Muslims are supposed to follow all sent by God including Jesus and the Bible.

So if it changes how Islam is taught or practiced, then it would get rid of any false or corrupted interpretations and establish the one my friends believe in that in Islam there is no indoctrination and all sent by God are supposed to be respected; where I agree with the universal interpretation of including all faiths, and following civil laws that reinforce the idea of religious freedom. I don't agree with the interpretation that limits to just Jewish Torah, Christian scripture and Muslim Quran HOWEVER I found a way to reconcile anyway by citing Christian scripture where civil laws/human authority are supposed to be respected, and then following civil laws/natural laws such as Constitutional principles of religious freedom under that, under Christian scripture which Islam is supposed to include.
So you can graft on the secular gentiles and natural laws that way and still reconcile.

What prevents reconciliation is rejection based on unforgiveness.
So if you ahve that going on, then no amount of anything is going to resolve it
except choosing to forgive and work out differences some other way not condemnation.

Thanks and I hope we do see more collaboration between Jewish/Christian/Muslim
based on common love of Truth Justice and Peace. Whatever you call the commitment to Restorative Justice that allows reconciliation, that is still Jesus by any other name.

 

[Politico]

I don't need religion to determine anything.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't need religion to determine anything.

OK how do you describe the system you use or follow in life?

Examples:
One friend said his secular humanist philosophy is
Respect for Truth
Respect for Freedom
Respect for People/Environment
(he also did not consider this a religion but I pointed out
the three levels correspond as secular equivalents of the Holy Trinity)

Another professor closed a graduation speech with:
Aim High
Let Go
Keep Moving

Confucionism is based on:
Supreme Virtue or Benevolence
Highest Principles embodied in man
Outward manifestation of moral standards

Do you have a personal philosophy or set of values
you respect and follow in life? If so, does it follow a
pattern of
1. something on the individual or physical level
3. something on a higher abstract or collective level
2. some level joining the other two (like conscience, law, relationships, etc)

What do you value and believe about life?
Can you put it in words that describe your own ways of thinking?

 

[Oldguy]

Hi OG and thank you for elaborating.
So by tolerance, I think your answer points to B that the factor is forbearance or
forgiveness of differences.

However, what I mean by the reconciliation process, the beliefs are not compromised but accommodated. For example, if my friends and I do not see the divinity or humanity of Christ the same way, if we both agree to follow the process of "Restorative Justice"
(even using secular civil or natural laws including scientific method) then I recognize that is the same thing as receiving the spirit of Christ Jesus. So we do not change our beliefs or systems, just agree how to follow them consistently with each other to resolve conflcits.

There are lots of us who have reconciled any differences we have with followers of different faiths on a personal level. It's called tolerance (a commodity in short supply). But, there can be no reconciliation of fundamental doctrines without those things which we profess to believe being discarded.

For instance, there can be no Islamic-Christian denomination because the differences are simply unbridgeable. Either Jesus is the Son of God or He's not. For a Muslim to accept that He is makes him no longer a Muslim and vice versa for a Christian. The two faiths can coexist as neighbors, but not as a joint faith.

Nearly every faith has an element of exclusivity (decidedly so for the three biggest mono-theistic faiths) and that simply cannot be wished away. You're not just dealing with human perceptions, but different people's understanding of God.

As for your explanation about Muslims and Christians this is a very key critical issue that does need to be addressed!

I have Muslim friends who have reconciled with their Christian families and some have not.

I have a friend who considers himself both Muslim and Christian (also Buddhist and Pagan) but objects to Islam as not being universal but only recognizing Jews/Christians/Muslims
and not recognizing Buddhism or other teachings I guess Constitutional law also
as given by God while I interpret Islam to include all things sent by God.

I think the difference is that whether Muslims or Atheists or Buddhists etc. do not recognize the divinity of Jesus; these people (even those claiming to be Christian such as Jehovah's witnesses who may not see Jesus except as a spiritual teacher not the law of God embodied incarnate) of differing denominations are actual secular Gentiles under natural laws, so that we can still reconcile by sticking with natural laws and applying the concept of Jesus or equal justice to that realm of laws and reach agreement in truth.

I have better success addressing such people by invoking the spirit of Jesus Christ or Restorative Justice under 'natural laws' and then using our free speech/right to petition and due process to resolve any differences in faith or religion we may have under that.

Does this change your perception to know there are Muslim/Christian outreach websites and groups that have successfully reconciled (such as friends who recognize the divinity and miracle of Jesus, while continuing to follow the Islamic cultural traditions of their family they were brought up with)?

Does it help you see that reconciliation is possible since I do know individuals who have resolved these issues for themselves, even if other people haven't fully resolved their issues with them, or are still in process.

Can you explain OldGuy why you would put the conflict of people who haven't resolved Muslim/Christian issues BEFORE the people's beliefs who HAVE resolved these; wouldn't you think the people who worked out their issues might have some insights closer to God's universal truth to be able to explain and reconcile both at the same time? Why not look into those ways and see how they did it, and if those answers make more sense?

My guess is that if you and others haven't forgiven these conflicts, then it limits the perception that reconciliation is possible. I happen to see various ways of either reconciling them or not; so that's why I have seen it is possible, or people have done it, or are in process of resolving things and just need to take it a step further. Even if it would radically change Islam to totally reconcile with Christ, that is good, too. At least it would fulfill the teachings that Muslims are supposed to follow all sent by God including Jesus and the Bible.

So if it changes how Islam is taught or practiced, then it would get rid of any false or corrupted interpretations and establish the one my friends believe in that in Islam there is no indoctrination and all sent by God are supposed to be respected; where I agree with the universal interpretation of including all faiths, and following civil laws that reinforce the idea of religious freedom. I don't agree with the interpretation that limits to just Jewish Torah, Christian scripture and Muslim Quran HOWEVER I found a way to reconcile anyway by citing Christian scripture where civil laws/human authority are supposed to be respected, and then following civil laws/natural laws such as Constitutional principles of religious freedom under that, under Christian scripture which Islam is supposed to include.
So you can graft on the secular gentiles and natural laws that way and still reconcile.

What prevents reconciliation is rejection based on unforgiveness.
So if you ahve that going on, then no amount of anything is going to resolve it
except choosing to forgive and work out differences some other way not condemnation.

Thanks and I hope we do see more collaboration between Jewish/Christian/Muslim
based on common love of Truth Justice and Peace. Whatever you call the commitment to Restorative Justice that allows reconciliation, that is still Jesus by any other name.

I'm sorry, but I'm really not following what you're after here and admit to being totally confused about your references to constitutional law and natural law in regards to Christ.

 

[Politico]

Wow emily you are way overthinking things.

 

[Ancient lion]

This may help: Concept of God in Major Religions

 

[amrchaos]

I lind of get what Emily is trying to do in point one of the op

I think he is trying to "conceptualize" God into definitions that we may agree on. You do not need to accept more detailed issues of a theology to come to this idea.

For instance, I do not believe in a living being as a god--but I can follow the abstraction of what god means to different people.

I.e.--you don't have to be a theist to follow emily to come to an understanding what is being sought by point one.

A very interesting point of view--if we can keep absolutism out and personal opinions of "what does god represent to me" in.

 

[PratchettFan]

The simple answer is... no.

Humans have a dual nature. The individual and the tribe. An individual can certainly reconcile differences and forgive differences. The tribe will always view differences as a threat. So, depending upon whether someone leans more toward being an individual or more towards being a member of the tribe will determine how flexible they are toward differences in others. I think the more people associate themselves with a given religion, the more likely they are to be tribal and thus the less likely they are to be willing to forgive.

 

[emilynghiem]

The simple answer is... no.

Humans have a dual nature. The individual and the tribe. An individual can certainly reconcile differences and forgive differences. The tribe will always view differences as a threat. So, depending upon whether someone leans more toward being an individual or more towards being a member of the tribe will determine how flexible they are toward differences in others. I think the more people associate themselves with a given religion, the more likely they are to be tribal and thus the less likely they are to be willing to forgive.

Hi PF: I agree that the collective social pressures on a person can influence if they forgive or not, as we see with religious and political groups that people identify with and sometimes tow the party line instead of thinking completely independently for themselves.

I agree one of the first steps is to help people take personal responsibility and not project onto groups to blame or think for them.

However, where I see this is cause is wehre people already don't forgive something in their personal past, such as an issue with an authority figure like their father or a maternal figure, someone who abandoned or imposed on them, where they may project this issue outward.

Any overreliance on a church or state figure, or institution to protect or represent their beliefs for them usually can be traced to some unresolved conflict where the person could not change or control the situation, but turned outside to another source.

So that person still needs to address the root conflict or issue that was not resolved or forgiven, in order to stop projecting responsibility onto some outside source or group.

Does this make sense? To work backward and start with the individual person
to separate from the collective institution they are projecting onto?

On the whole, I totally agree with you this causes a problem and you stated this well.
I'm just adding there are ways to work with that scenario to address this or resolve it.

In fact, I believe it is necessary for the process of consensus by reconciliation; we cannot reach all people in a reasonably manageable process WITHOUT relying on tribal affilations and associations to speed up the representation and dissemination of information back and forth. The idea is that once one member or leader of a team gets an issue resolved, then that person can take it back to the other members of the group and work through it. So this way we can use those same hierachies of organizations to communicate en masse and assimilate the changes and corrections that would need to occur in order to reconcile.

What do you think of this idea? to use the tribal affilations as an advantage to reach more people in an organized hierarchy and network?

 

[emilynghiem]

Wow emily you are way overthinking things.

Yes I do, and that is why I need feedback and help from others to streamline and organize this.

I give you thanks for your honesty!
This is one reason I do need help from others who know how to "keep it simple stupid"

 

[emilynghiem]

This may help: Concept of God in Major Religions

Yes thank you!
I thought you were going to refer to a list similar to the 99 names of God,
but this gives more cultural and historical background, so thank you!
I will try to set up a central website and link this reference in a resource section.

you remind me of this webpage on the
Golden Rule of Reciprocity
stated in all religions as universal:
Golden Rule - World Religion Day
Do you like this one?

This is just a natural law that all people want others
to treat them with respect for their ways and needs,
so of course we should treat others as we want to be treated.

the distinction Jesus made in instructing us to love one another
as he loves us is the focus on "unconditonal love" that God stands for
[not projecting human conditions on love onto our neighbors, where false/selfish attachments to material requirements for happiness are also warned against in buddhism as causing suffering. if all people agree to work out ways to meet relative needs and not impose on anyone unfairly but share responsibility freely in ways we agree, we can resolve these issues unconditionally and can avoid material conflict and competition over resources.]

so this goes beyond just loving our neighbors as ourselves [which can go wrong where people don't agree on the terms and conditions of how to treat each other fair to both]
and emphasizes doing so "unconditionally" without imposing material conditions we don't all agree to.

One problem i find with Constitutional laws is that it does not require citizens to follow the same laws they want government to follow as in the Bill of Rights. So people want free speech but then abuse it or try to censor the equal rights of their opponents to free speech or due process. Since this violates the Golden Rule, it of course leads to hypocrisy and conflict that obstructs democracy justice and equal protection/representation by skewing
and blocking the process, such as with one-sided politics that doesn't respect other views.

If nobody likes being overruled or bullied by other people or parties, why do that to others?
if we follow the Golden Rule, couldn't we enforce equal inclusion and protection for all?

 

[emilynghiem]

This may help: Concept of God in Major Religions

Yes thank you!
I thought you were going to refer to a list similar to the 99 names of God,
but this gives more cultural and historical background, so thank you!
I will try to set up a central website and link this reference in a resource section.

you remind me of this webpage on the
Golden Rule of Reciprocity
stated in all religions as universal:
Golden Rule - World Religion Day
Do you like this one? Do you know another page I should add also?

This is just a natural law that all people want others
to treat them with respect for their ways and needs,
so of course we should treat others as we want to be treated.

the distinction Jesus made in instructing us to love one another
as he loves us is the focus on "unconditonal love" that God stands for
[not projecting human conditions on love onto our neighbors, where false/selfish attachments to material requirements for happiness are also warned against in buddhism as causing suffering. if all people agree to work out ways to meet relative needs and not impose on anyone unfairly but share responsibility freely in ways we agree, we can resolve these issues unconditionally and can avoid material conflict and competition over resources.]

so this goes beyond just loving our neighbors as ourselves [which can go wrong where people don't agree on the terms and conditions of how to treat each other fair to both]
and emphasizes doing so "unconditionally" without imposing material conditions we don't all agree to.

One problem i find with Constitutional laws is that it does not require citizens to follow the same laws they want government to follow as in the Bill of Rights. So people want free speech but then abuse it or try to censor the equal rights of their opponents to free speech or due process. Since this violates the Golden Rule, it of course leads to hypocrisy and conflict that obstructs democracy justice and equal protection/representation by skewing
and blocking the process, such as with one-sided politics that doesn't respect other views.

If nobody likes being overruled or bullied by other people or parties, why do that to others?
if we follow the Golden Rule, couldn't we enforce equal inclusion and protection for all?

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

After careful consideration I have to default to OG's line of thinking. Plain and simple tolerance is the only genuine work-around. Not perfect, but workable.

Cultural and religious incorporation is nothing new. Take the Christmas holiday for example, which is little more than the pagan German celebration of yuletide injected with the Christian birth narrative. Christianity, when converting the Germanic peoples to their faith, essentially took an existing cultural celebration and incorporated it. That's not a condemnation of either, simply what happened. While nativity scenes and the Christin birth narrative are present, most of the traditions and the festiveness of the season comes straight from yuletide.

That is but one example of many. The Hellenistic Period gives us a ton of examples of cultural and religious incorporation.

I appreciate the Universalist approach, but this incorporation, in my opinion, is not something that can be contrived or called into being. It simply happens because the conditions at a particular time and place in history make it so. One must remember that religion is as much a culture as a belief.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm sorry, but I'm really not following what you're after here and admit to being totally confused about your references to constitutional law and natural law in regards to Christ.

Hi Oldguy and sorry for this!
What I mean is the concept that the same way God is represented as
1. A Divine God on a spiritual level
2. God of Nature on a secular level
Jesus also represents the dominion or authority of Universal Justice and Peace
1. on a spiritual level as Salvation or heavenly peace/grace through Scriptural Laws
2. on a secular level as Justice through natural laws of governance on earth
that are expressed in civil laws and Constitutional laws etc.

So the point of 'agreeing in Christ' or by conscience between
the churched believers using Sacred/scriptural laws of the Church to express their beliefs and
the secular gentiles using civil laws of the State to establish those policies
is to establish agreement in the spirit of universal Truth and Justice and Peace
among people of either or both sectors of the populations, group 1 and group 2.

Each may rely on separate laws, (2) gentiles who use science and civil/constitutional laws,
and (1) religious believers who follow authority under scriptural laws. but they don't have to be in conflict.

Where the universal/unifying spirit of "Justice" (which Jesus represents)
fulfills and unites both groups in one accord, this allows them to reach agreement point by point,
even if the laws are expressed in different forms under different leaders and groups.

This is also where forgiveness of differences is key to allowing the communication to reach such agreements.

They can still agree in spirit despite differences in laws. Then we can get along by working
in that spirit of agreement, to resolve issues to meet these standards we all agree respect our respective laws and principles.

Does this make more sense how they are connected?
that some people may never relate to church laws and Jesus that way,
so if we agree to state laws that uphold equal justice for all then
we can go that route to bring together groups under joint resolutions.

If this is done officially by bringing key reps from various groups together,
then all other members of those groups can follow and benefit in turn.

 

[PratchettFan]

The simple answer is... no.

Humans have a dual nature. The individual and the tribe. An individual can certainly reconcile differences and forgive differences. The tribe will always view differences as a threat. So, depending upon whether someone leans more toward being an individual or more towards being a member of the tribe will determine how flexible they are toward differences in others. I think the more people associate themselves with a given religion, the more likely they are to be tribal and thus the less likely they are to be willing to forgive.

Hi PF: I agree that the collective social pressures on a person can influence if they forgive or not, as we see with religious and political groups that people identify with and sometimes tow the party line instead of thinking completely independently for themselves.

I agree one of the first steps is to help people take personal responsibility and not project onto groups to blame or think for them.

However, where I see this is cause is wehre people already don't forgive something in their personal past, such as an issue with an authority figure like their father or a maternal figure, someone who abandoned or imposed on them, where they may project this issue outward.

Any overreliance on a church or state figure, or institution to protect or represent their beliefs for them usually can be traced to some unresolved conflict where the person could not change or control the situation, but turned outside to another source.

So that person still needs to address the root conflict or issue that was not resolved or forgiven, in order to stop projecting responsibility onto some outside source or group.

Does this make sense? To work backward and start with the individual person
to separate from the collective institution they are projecting onto?

On the whole, I totally agree with you this causes a problem and you stated this well.
I'm just adding there are ways to work with that scenario to address this or resolve it.

In fact, I believe it is necessary for the process of consensus by reconciliation; we cannot reach all people in a reasonably manageable process WITHOUT relying on tribal affilations and associations to speed up the representation and dissemination of information back and forth. The idea is that once one member or leader of a team gets an issue resolved, then that person can take it back to the other members of the group and work through it. So this way we can use those same hierachies of organizations to communicate en masse and assimilate the changes and corrections that would need to occur in order to reconcile.

What do you think of this idea? to use the tribal affilations as an advantage to reach more people in an organized hierarchy and network?

I think this would work for those people who already are reconciled and won't work for those who are not. You are talking about using rational discourse on a subject which is, by its very nature, irrational. Once you toss in the primal human nature of the tribe, there is no discourse. This is because once you have been identified as an outsider, they are no longer listening.

That is not to say I object to the exercise. I believe your intent has no chance of success, but the attempt itself will cause you to consider your own views and that is always an exercise worth the effort. In spirituality, it is the trip that matters - not the destination.

Given that, the first hurdle is definition. What is God? What is truth? What is justice? I doubt you will get agreement beyond a very small group on any of those questions. For example, God to me is a word of convenience which conveys a general concept and does not begin to fit my own beliefs. I do not believe in God as an individual entity or as a creator. Truth is that which is and justice is an excuse.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ok if this works for you because you are already tolerant and don't need this process, I gather.

But JJ what of others who NEED to see proof first, for example, Muslims Jews and Christians can pass a joint reoslution including and reconciling all their local tribes,
BEFORE they forgive their misgivings and come to the same open tolerance you have?

What if people (like my own boyfriend) need to SEE that spiritual healing really cures pedophiles and does not allow dangerous peopel running around sick
BEFORE he will forgive the people who murdered and abused people in the past.
Once he SEES proof it is a sick condition that has a cause and a cure,
so he can be tolerant of some group workign to contain that disease and protect people.

What ARE all the issues (from homosexuality to immigration issues) that
prevent people from being tolerant, but if these were resolved to their satisfaction,
they might open up and agree to support diverse groups working together on solutions?

What causes people not to forgive so they aren't tolerant of groups they blame for issues?
How can we address those faster globally across the board and reach more people?

After careful consideration I have to default to OG's line of thinking. Plain and simple tolerance is the only genuine work-around. Not perfect, but workable.

Cultural and religious incorporation is nothing new. Take the Christmas holiday for example, which is little more than the pagan German celebration of yuletide injected with the Christian birth narrative. Christianity, when converting the Germanic peoples to their faith, essentially took an existing cultural celebration and incorporated it. That's not a condemnation of either, simply what happened. While nativity scenes and the Christin birth narrative are present, most of the traditions and the festiveness of the season comes straight from yuletide.

That is but one example of many. The Hellenistic Period gives us a ton of examples of cultural and religious incorporation.

I appreciate the Universalist approach, but this incorporation, in my opinion, is not something that can be contrived or called into being. It simply happens because the conditions at a particular time and place in history make it so. One must remember that religion is as much a culture as a belief.

Yes, that is why it is important to include and respect with tolerance, as you say.
if people can't do this, I want to address the key issues that would help change that
so they are not afraid to work together. if they know there are solutions proven to work!