Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

A central aspect of many traditional, established religions is that their god (or gods) is/are presumed to be the only ones, and that no others exist. In the past, when cultures and their religions were segregated this was all well and good, but the world today has become a much smaller place. Inevitably these religions and their doctrines have come to clash in various ways.

One proposed (and popular) solution was that religions were talking about the same gods. Commonly Buddha, Jesus, and Allah were seen to be one and the same historical figure interpreted by many different cultures and their prophets. This of course is not orthodox and would run against a literal interpretation of the central aspects of many (if not all) religions.

So the questions are as follows:
Do you think pluralism is valid? If so, how do you reconcile it with the inevitable doctrinal tensions?
How else can one resolve the more directly antagonistic tensions between different faiths?
(For the atheists and the agnostics) Are either of these questions valid, or relevant on any level other than a social one? If not, please explain your position (and I'll be prodding you!)

<blockquote data-quote="dong" data-source="post: 45471" data-attributes="member: 1242">A central aspect of many traditional, established religions is that their god (or gods) is/are presumed to be the only ones, and that no others exist. In the past, when cultures and their religions were segregated this was all well and good, but the world today has become a much smaller place. Inevitably these religions and their doctrines have come to clash in various ways.&nbsp;One proposed (and popular) solution was that religions were talking about the same gods. Commonly Buddha, Jesus, and Allah were seen to be one and the same historical figure interpreted by many different cultures and their prophets. This of course is not orthodox and would run against a literal interpretation of the central aspects of many (if not all) religions.&nbsp;So the questions are as follows:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Do you think pluralism is valid? If so, how do you reconcile it with the inevitable doctrinal tensions?</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">How else can one resolve the more directly antagonistic tensions between different faiths?</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">(For the atheists and the agnostics) Are either of these questions valid, or relevant on any level other than a social one? If not, please explain your position (and I&#039;ll be prodding you!)</li>
</ol></blockquote>

[QUOTE="dong, post: 45471, member: 1242"] A central aspect of many traditional, established religions is that their god (or gods) is/are presumed to be the only ones, and that no others exist. In the past, when cultures and their religions were segregated this was all well and good, but the world today has become a much smaller place. Inevitably these religions and their doctrines have come to clash in various ways. One proposed (and popular) solution was that religions were talking about the same gods. Commonly Buddha, Jesus, and Allah were seen to be one and the same historical figure interpreted by many different cultures and their prophets. This of course is not orthodox and would run against a literal interpretation of the central aspects of many (if not all) religions. So the questions are as follows: [LIST=1] [*]Do you think pluralism is valid? If so, how do you reconcile it with the inevitable doctrinal tensions? [*]How else can one resolve the more directly antagonistic tensions between different faiths? [*](For the atheists and the agnostics) Are either of these questions valid, or relevant on any level other than a social one? If not, please explain your position (and I'll be prodding you!)[/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification