This article just popped up on my FB feed and thought it was quite interesting so sharing it with you

“A clear-eyed understanding of our religious differences may be the best hope for promoting cooperation among different religions.”
By Dan Harper

Nelly x

I’m with Prothero.  On a very simplistic, so simplistic as to be meaningless, there is a common goal.. most do offer some sort of salvation, whether after you die, or while you’re living.
I also agree it is actually disrespectful to dismiss religions Gods and Godesses and say they are all part of one.  Its also lazy to say all these dieties are part of, or are other facets of one god - it means a person doesn’t really have to learn and understand about the other religions - why bother, it’s all the same really, underneath.  Rubbish. 

We should be learning about each other’s religions, appreciating and gaining some understanding of what people believe.  Thsi idea of a common God, is almost like saying there’s really just one religion, and that is incredibly insulting, I feel.  I think too, it’s a reaction to modern fears of some religions.  If we say all are really the same.. then they really aren’t any different from “us”.  We are so scared and timid of each other we have to believe we’re all the same, rather than embrace and celebrate our differences.  And that, I feel, is terribly sad.

(Obviously, I’m using “we” etc in the universialist form)

Joxy.

Yes, I agree with the basic sentiment of the article that all religions are not facets of one and the same - though I do think that statement in itself is overly simplistic.  I believe that all religion is seeking meaningfulness and relationship with that sense of “otherness” so in that sense we are all trying to head the same way, but not that all paths will eventually converge (or ought to be trying to).  I also agree with Joxy that unless we truly listen to and care about our differences we are stuck in our own little boxes and in real danger of patronising or otherwise harming other people in our ignorance.  That’s one of the many reasons why, even if I don’t always post, I value the range of perspectives on this forum - and hope that others feel they are able to express their faith without being jumped on or corrected. 

Three things that leap out at me though…  Firstly, compassion as the central theme in all religion does NOT make sense.  This could be rather insulting to many theistic beliefs, which would mostly state that care of others comes out of obedience to or love of their deity, to sideline God (or YWH or Allah) as a byline to the more important message would be highly distasteful to those believers.

Second, actually, I won’t go with love and compassion being divided up so neatly.    Love could be love of others or of a god or of the world, or whatever, wheras compassion is soley love of other people, but I’m with CSLewis in believing compassion (or pure Charity) as an important facet of love.  Compassion, surely, is love for no other sake but that of the other person.  Saying it’s not as important as love, as the author is in danger of doing, misses that compassion IS love.  Just not ALL of love.

Lastly, of course being pedantic, I am not going to let this one past without comment LOL. 

“Christians use the techniques of faith and good works, and Christian exemplars are saints or ordinary people of faith.” 

This is falling into the stated trap of viewing all faiths as the same, of course, as it is a description of what SOME Catholics believe, and not at all even the majority of Catholics.  For the record, were it needed, Christians don’t believe that faith buys you salvation; the means of salvation is soley grace through faith - and although Catholic “optional extra” exemplars are saints, the major exemplar would of course be Jesus.    I told you I was being pedantic - still I think it’s an important difference - not all Christians are Catholics, not all Christians (or all Catholics) believe the exact same things.  Similarly, not all Pagans live to the same creed or believe in the same spiritual truths, and I would be as quick to point out a statement implying that Paganism could be as neatly boxed. 

hehe what sarah said

For a long time, interfaith dialogue was predicated on the fact that the meetings would involve discussions of where we agreed. We’d all try to leave the meeting saying “Well, we’re all fairly similar, really!” I for one always found this problematic because we’re not. I come from a Reform Jewish perspective and to suggest that Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews, for example, share a common thread is actually very hard to explain. We may share a common heritage but our approach to text is utterly different. So to suggest that all religions have a common thread is exceptionally hard. As the founder of an interfaith environmental group, though, I did make it a policy that IDEA (Interfaith Dorset Education and Action) was predicated on the simple fact that we all share the same world, we all call ourselves faith communities and we all want to protect the Earth. More than that we don’t demand.

But when my community engages in interfaith dialogue now, we show our differences as well as our similarities. That way when something challenges us we learn about the speaker and we also learn more about ourselves based on our reaction to what we have heard. So I’m all for this opening quotation… I think it’s spot on.

I might be tempted to suggest that, if anything, all religions share one thing - a hope to leave the world in a better place for our having lived in it. How they define what it means to be “better” and how they get to that point is open to a wide variety of responses. Yes, perhaps this is the only common thread that I can see.

What a good question!

Neil