The difficulty in discussion of Abrahamic religions is that only the fundamentalist models are completely secure and fixed. Many of those following these religions are not fundamentalist and do not have any desire to be evangelical. The Christian religions are a large family of faiths that share some aspects but can be very different. Logically the same is true of some flavours of Islam because the position that 'no man should come between another and God', implies that each Muslim is controller of his or her own beliefs and therefore that there must be as many forms of Islam as there are followers. Probably, an overwhelming majority takes a very pragmatic view of their particular religion. However, those same pragmatists can rapidly form up behind the fundamentalists against another religion, in the same way that those following religions that may not be classed as fundamentalist can show very similar intolerance and discrimination.

Unfortunately, most people build a picture in their own mind of what another religion is and that then becomes a box into which all who say they follow that religion are conveniently placed. It makes life simple and provides a clear focus for discrimination even though it is not logical and unfairly condemns.

To a fundamentalist Christian, only the Creation Theory is valid and this has led to conflict in the US where creationists fight to exclude Darwin's theories from schools. Some Darwinists are equally determined that creationism should not be taught, but may also consider themselves Christian. As Darwin's Theories are now widely accepted by many Christians, logic says that these individuals are not fundamentalist Christians but cannot argue with the individuals that they are not Christian.

There is very little purity in Christian belief because the faith prospered by absorbing festivals and beliefs from pagan religions and in some parts of South America, there are Catholic Christian communities that that would be considered heretical and pagan by some Christians.

This pragmatism can apply to Hebrews. A colleague, who in his forties still obedient to his mother, a very orthodox Jew, enjoyed bacon sandwiches and enthusiastically enjoyed Christian festivals but was the model of orthodoxy at the Synagogue.

Usually what happens is that some very anti-social people hide behind religion and quote only those parts of the faith that support their positions. That applies to a great many religions.

In Liberal Christianity, senior priests no longer believe in many of the teachings that were once followed blindly and some show little sign of even accepting God.



On 24/01/2012 07:35, Ram wrote:

 

The issue is the nature of the "evidence" and for what purpose it is being used.

Christians, Muslims and Jews offer up their sacred texts as historical fact, as a record and proof of actual events that occurred in recorded time. Their entire theology is based on these supposed events and beings human and non human, including matters way back in time, like the creation of the universe, casting of Satan out of heaven, the Adam and Eve story, the story of  Abraham, Samson, Moses and the like. Incredibly, they seem to expect others outside their religions to believe these stories in their sacred texts.

We Hindus, Buddhists, Jains etc also have sacred texts, some of them containing stories and events in time, such as the Ramayana, Gita, various Puranas and so on. But unlike the Abrahamic faiths, we offer these texts on several levels and not purely as historical fact. So the message of the Gita is more important than whether Arjuna spoke to Lord Krishna in some century BC. Our stories can be seen as parables, as philosophy, and in some cases also as history, such as the story of  Buddha. Absolute belief in the historicity of the characters in our sacred texts is not required for us, and especially not for others who do not follow our dharmas. In fact, there are sections of  Hinduism like the Arya Samajists who do not accept the stories of  Rama and Krishna and Buddha at all.

There is a clear difference between the sacred texts of the two groups, and a need for us to draw the boundary lines for our arrogant Christian, Muslim and Jewish friends. We need to keep telling them that their version of history is not universally accepted, and that we will not be bound by a narrative that sees us as inferiors, heathen, and unbelievers condemned to hell and damnation. Their narrative does not see us as equal and respected, and we will have none of it. And we do not expect them to believe in  or be bound by our narrative, or to accept it as proven historical fact.

This is how it works in practice. A Christian comes up to tell you that you were born in (original) sin because of the Garden of  Eden story, and you need to believe in Jesus the only Son of  God, the only person who can rid you of this original sin. You tell him you do not accept that Garden of Eden original sin story, nor that Jesus is the only son of God or the entire Jesus story. The Christian probably gets very angry, as the basis of his entire message is destroyed. You can tell him there is no evidence to support his preposterous story of  Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and you have no reason to believe God would be such an idiot as to blame a couple's children for an sin allegedly committed by them.

This is a very old and respected method of  logic that we have been failing to use for many many years when confronted by other, hostile religious movements. Question their assumptions and the core beliefs on which they base their message. So for example we do not need to pick holes in Jesus' message, but we can question the assumptions Christians package along with Jesus, such as only son of God, saviour from original sin and so on. No Christian can answer the question: Where is your empirical evidence that Jesus is the only one to save us from original sin, and where is your empirical evidence that we have inherited original sin in the first case? No Muslim can answer the question: Where is your empirical evidence that Mohammed ascended to heaven from  the Temple of David site in Israel?

On the other side, we will have no problem in dealing with the question: Where is your empirical evidence that Lord Rama defeated Ravana and rescued Sita? We can say the point of the Ramayana is that evil must be fought as Rama fought Ravana, and not what year the battle in Lanka actually took place.

I for one am not interested in a dialogue with the Abrahamists on their terms

which is acceptance of their Nicene Creed, Koran or the Jewish Old Testament as historical fact. That is a rigged game which we have played for quite a while and consistently lost.

If they are interested in a dialogue with no preconditions, no assumptions of superiority on their part or ours, and mutual respect, I am for it.

Ram,

Then the interesting question that comes up is: Why would you reject the Others’ sacred text while accept the ‘evidence’ of your own dharma (that is, Bhagwad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana, etc.)?

 

Clearly, there cannot be a dialogue then. Or, do you have a way out?

 

Regards,

Viswa