Skankinsasquatch
2005-07-10, 17:37
It's been sugested (quite convincingly, I might add) that most religions are fundamentally the same; they only differ in their traditions.
One omniscient God existing out of time and space is spoken of in all major religions (except for Buddhism...but we'll get to that). This is more important than one might think...especially when you consider how similar each religion's God is.
God may be depicted as a man in many christian images, however this is used for rhetorical purposes. God cannot be a man...God cannot be a form (he exists out of space). His image as a man is symbolic of his role (an old man...i.e. a father). It is also argued by some religions that God is a part of us, but not materially (God exists out of space, therefore the material world cannot be true or Godly). There is evidence to sugest that even Christianity and Judaism theorize this (God created us in his image). All major religions stress the deceptive nature of the material world (Hinduism explicitly, but the 3 western religions also imply that sin comes from a failure to distinguish truth and the material world). Its also very interesting how similar religious experiences and ideal actions in all major religions are similar. Jesus stressed that truth would come from adopted the action of "the lilies of the field" (lack of question, want, or toil). Similarly, in Hinduism a religious experience is characterized as a dream-esque state where we become apart of the ultimate being again (again, where we have a lack of question, want, or toil). Buddhism may lack a God but it can be considered fundamentally the same if the word "God" is replaced with truth.
Share your thoughts.
[This message has been edited by Skankinsasquatch (edited 07-10-2005).]
One omniscient God existing out of time and space is spoken of in all major religions (except for Buddhism...but we'll get to that). This is more important than one might think...especially when you consider how similar each religion's God is.
God may be depicted as a man in many christian images, however this is used for rhetorical purposes. God cannot be a man...God cannot be a form (he exists out of space). His image as a man is symbolic of his role (an old man...i.e. a father). It is also argued by some religions that God is a part of us, but not materially (God exists out of space, therefore the material world cannot be true or Godly). There is evidence to sugest that even Christianity and Judaism theorize this (God created us in his image). All major religions stress the deceptive nature of the material world (Hinduism explicitly, but the 3 western religions also imply that sin comes from a failure to distinguish truth and the material world). Its also very interesting how similar religious experiences and ideal actions in all major religions are similar. Jesus stressed that truth would come from adopted the action of "the lilies of the field" (lack of question, want, or toil). Similarly, in Hinduism a religious experience is characterized as a dream-esque state where we become apart of the ultimate being again (again, where we have a lack of question, want, or toil). Buddhism may lack a God but it can be considered fundamentally the same if the word "God" is replaced with truth.
Share your thoughts.
[This message has been edited by Skankinsasquatch (edited 07-10-2005).]