Is it possible for a person to be both Christian and Muslim at the same time?
| Quote: |
Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, a Muslim - Christian?
Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, 55, graduated from Brown University, earned master's degrees from two seminaries, and received her Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City, NY. She felt called to the priesthood; in 1984, she was ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church, USA. She will teach the New Testament as a visiting assistant professor at Seattle University in the fall of 2007. She has a life goal to create an institute to study the three largest monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
In 2005-Fall, a Muslim leader gave a talk at St. Mark's Cathedral where Redding worked. She was moved by his prayer. During 2006-Spring, another Muslim leader taught a chanted prayer to God at a cathedral's inter-faith class. She began reciting the prayer daily. She began to study Islam intensely. in 2006-March, she became a Muslim by reciting the shahada -- "There is no god but God (Allah), and Muhammad is his prophet."
She says that:
"Coming to Islam was like coming into a family with whom I'd been estranged. We have not only the same God, but the same ancestor with Abraham."
|
http://www.religioustolerance.org/bemultfaith1.htm In fact a person can be a christian , a Muslim and Jew too for that matter
beacsue all have the same origins
in fact what is the religion of God
Religion is a road to god and there can be more than one roads. Each will find the best road that suites them in their course of life and they may often change their roads in between.
In India, our scriptures says that god is present everywhere and is very much present in the seeker also. For a seeker, he is the most nearest location in which he can find the god and thus, Hinduism advocates seek for the god within.
Anyhow, what religion you belong matters little... It is experience that matters!
Well, until you define what a Christian (or a Muslim for that matter) actually is then you can't answer the question.
If you say that a Christian is one who has been baptised and accepts that Jesus is the 'lord and saviour' of mankind, and the son of God, then no - Muslims do not believe that. If it is a central 'plank' of Christianity that Jesus was crucified and died for our sins, then no, Muslims do not accept that either.
A person cannot be a Christian and a Moslem at the same time. The Koran won't admit it. Christians would claim that there is no other name through which salvation is given but Christ.
Not devoutly both, no.
Like Bikerman said, Jesus being the divine savior is the central tenant of Christianity. That means that the Muslim belief that Jesus was just a prophet and wise man, who never claimed to be divine is incompatible.
Now, you could make your own hybrid religion that incorporates them both together as well as possible though. There would be only a few beliefs in either one you'd have to ignore.
Think the lady started off as a Christian, and has moved into being a Moslem. Who knows, maybe she argued to herself that her foundation is Christian and Moslem seems to be her preferred way of serving God right now. But this is my take too, I doubt you can do it devoutly for both at the same time.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Is it possible for a person to be both Christian and Muslim at the same time? |
Absolutely and most certainly NO. First of all the God of Islam is NOT the God of the Christians and the Jews. There is but one God and creator of the universe. He is the God of Israel!
Secondly Islam has taken some of the Bible stories and twisted them to fit Mohammed's own ideas, e.g. The story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac has been totally distorted in Quaraan. There it depicts Abraham or as it is in the Quaraan Ibrahim sacrificing Ishmael. NOTE that Mohammed lived 600 A.D where as the Bible was written somewhere around 1500 - 1000 B.C so the Quaraan cannot possibly be right when it has taken Biblical stories and changed them totally.
Thridly Islam places Mohammed who was ONLY a man above Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ/Messiah who was both 100% God and 100% man. Mohammed never claimed to be anything more than a man and certainly was nothing more than a man. He neither did miracles nor healed anyone nor drove out demons. Jesus raised the dead, healed the sick, did many miracles e.g. fed over 5000 people with 5 pieces of breed and 2 fish, Jesus drove out demons and Jesus was killed for our sins since He never committed any sins. See Isaiah 53!
On the contrary Mohammed commited sins just as any other humanbeing.
How can one possibly place Mohammed above or even on the same level as Jesus? 
With these facts one cannot be both Christian and a muslim 
| Whong wrote: |
| Absolutely and most certainly NO. First of all the God of Islam is NOT the God of the Christians and the Jews. There is but one God and creator of the universe. He is the God of Israel! |
I stopped reading here.
I don't think I will ever be able to wrap my head around people who have such an ability to deceive themselves of even the most basic historical facts. | liljp617 wrote: |
I stopped reading here.
|
So you deliberately don't read people's arguments if you detect something you don't agree with?
That's rude. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: |
I stopped reading here.
|
So you deliberately don't read people's arguments if you detect something you don't agree with?
That's rude. |
It is not an argument. It's not even a belief, what he said was factually incorrect. They are the same god.
And I did read the rest of the post, I just felt it was easier to point out the nonsense (the rest of the post was pretty nonsense as well, with fallacies and factually incorrect assertions overlapping each other) using the method I did rather than trying to refute someone who clearly doesn't want to acquire any deeper knowledge on the subject, but would rather preach on and on.Although many of their beliefs are the same, there is one major difference that sepparates this, and points to the fact that they can not go hand in hand.
Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, unlike christians who believe christ was god.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
(John 3:16-1
So basically, believing christ is god is the only way to salvation. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: |
I stopped reading here.
|
So you deliberately don't read people's arguments if you detect something you don't agree with?
That's rude. |
I have the same problem. Without intending to be rude. Whenever I see quotes of Verses (in my peripheral vision), I scan rather than read the postings. And it has now gotten worse when I see Whong's Cross. I did read his first couple of postings as Chris took him up on his points and I found the discussion interesting, and then afterwards sort of scanned through his postings missing most of the content, as basically it is always the same stuff with a very narrow minded vision. Perhaps it is also because I know he is on a "mission" and I usually close my mind against that automatically. I have a total resistance to dogma and see my resistance as one of my shortcomings. It takes a great mind to be able to grasp both points of opposite views with equal impartiality. Hopefully I will be able to do that one day. | deanhills wrote: |
| It takes a great mind to be able to grasp both points of opposite views with equal impartiality. Hopefully I will be able to do that one day. |
Even if you aren't equally impartial to both sides, at least read what they say.
Unless they've posted a huge 1000 word collection of mindless drivel, reading it isn't that hard, and everybody, no matter how wrong, deserves that much respect. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | It takes a great mind to be able to grasp both points of opposite views with equal impartiality. Hopefully I will be able to do that one day. |
Even if you aren't equally impartial to both sides, at least read what they say.
Unless they've posted a huge 1000 word collection of mindless drivel, reading it isn't that hard, and everybody, no matter how wrong, deserves that much respect. |
I read your postings well. They are short, to the point, succinct and communicate well. I try to read all other postings, but cannot help to blank out when they are longer than one paragraph, and have not got to the point within the first paragraph. I then scan the rest. Probably miss out in this way, but a posting has to deserve my attention. I doubt it is only up to me. 
It is hard being a muslim in a christian country for some but if you respect the koran, it states that you should believe all the books that came before it. That means that you can be a muslim and christian. The difference is your interpretation of these holy books. A muslim believes in one god and so do christians. It is the means to which we reach god that the opinions differ.
| flytye4life wrote: |
| It is the means to which we reach god that the opinions differ. |
Er, that is a rather important part of a religion...The surprising fact here is the
1. Jesus was a Jew!
2. Mohammad was not a Muslim!!!
and most importantly we don't know what religion God belongs to!!!!!!!
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
The surprising fact here is the
1. Jesus was a Jew!
2. Mohammad was not a Muslim!!!
and most importantly we don't know what religion God belongs to!!!!!!! |
By the same token when we were born none of us knew anything about religion, all we were interested in was food. And then our parents set the tone for us of what to believe in or not to believe in, and at school this continued and finally when we grew up we found that we rejected all of this, or branched out into something new. Then another important chapter followed with some in their mid-lives, etc. etc. Our life experiences are not finite, some of us started with one set of beliefs, then found those changing through their lives. Nothing is cast in stone.Mohammed was a christian at first. The he saw a vision of angel "Gabriel" telling him about islam. I personally don't believe that it was Gabriel because Gabriel told Mary about Jesus birth and that all came true. As it is well known that the devil can mascarade himself as the angel of light for that is what he at first was before he rebelled.
It's just so sad that Mohammed has lead astray so many people for Paul clearly warns that even if an angel were to come and preach a different gospel that angel is eternally cursed. Same thing happened to the founder of the mormons; an angel told about this new faith...
There are deceptions around and we must be very careful what we believe. 
| Whong wrote: |
| There are deceptions around and we must be very careful what we believe. |
The only truthful thing you've said thus far. | Whong wrote: |
Mohammed was a christian at first. The he saw a vision of angel "Gabriel" telling him about islam. I personally don't believe that it was Gabriel because Gabriel told Mary about Jesus birth and that all came true. As it is well known that the devil can mascarade himself as the angel of light for that is what he at first was before he rebelled.
It's just so sad that Mohammed has lead astray so many people for Paul clearly warns that even if an angel were to come and preach a different gospel that angel is eternally cursed. Same thing happened to the founder of the mormons; an angel told about this new faith...
There are deceptions around and we must be very careful what we believe. |
Can you back up the statement that "Mohammed was a Christian"? I don't know a lot about his background. I know that he was influenced by Jews, and wouldn't be surprised if he met some Christians also. He apparently had considerable respect for both these religions, but I never heard anything that would make me think he had been a member.
Indeed, we must weigh what we are told carefully. In the Koran, Mohammed wrote with respect about the "people of the book", by which he meant both Jews and Christians. He apparently started with the same God and a similar understanding.From a Christian point-of-view, you cannot be both at the same time. From a Muslim point-of-view, you can because Christians ARE Muslims. The word Muslim means "someone who submits to God." Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. Therefore, as long as Christians are submitting to God, they are being Muslims. I've actually talked to Muslims before who have told me that they consider Jesus to be a Muslim, Moses to be a Muslim, Abraham to be a Muslim, etc.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| From a Christian point-of-view, you cannot be both at the same time. From a Muslim point-of-view, you can because Christians ARE Muslims. The word Muslim means "someone who submits to God." Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. Therefore, as long as Christians are submitting to God, they are being Muslims. I've actually talked to Muslims before who have told me that they consider Jesus to be a Muslim, Moses to be a Muslim, Abraham to be a Muslim, etc. |
Well, as was pointed out early, it depends almost entirely on how you define being a Christian and/or Muslim. That's perhaps one definition of Muslim, although it seems pretty vague and very general. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| The word Muslim means "someone who submits to God." Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. Therefore, as long as Christians are submitting to God, they are being Muslims. I've actually talked to Muslims before who have told me that they consider Jesus to be a Muslim, Moses to be a Muslim, Abraham to be a Muslim, etc. |
I'm no expert however believe that Mohamed and the Koran feature highly and they are missing links for a Christian to be a Muslim as well. Christians have to go through some tough courses in order to become Muslim, and I believe some of what they have to adopt and subject to may be incompatible with Christianity as well as Western culture and beliefs. | deanhills wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | The word Muslim means "someone who submits to God." Christians and Muslims all worship the same God. Therefore, as long as Christians are submitting to God, they are being Muslims. I've actually talked to Muslims before who have told me that they consider Jesus to be a Muslim, Moses to be a Muslim, Abraham to be a Muslim, etc. |
I'm no expert however believe that Mohamed and the Koran feature highly and they are missing links for a Christian to be a Muslim as well. Christians have to go through some tough courses in order to become Muslim, and I believe some of what they have to adopt and subject to may be incompatible with Christianity as well as Western culture and beliefs. |
Well many Muslims believe that Christians are Muslims if they submit to God but that Christians Muslims are still missing out in some of the aspects of the religion and that they need to make some changes.Islam and Christianity share the same foundation as a religion, They both believe in Adam and Eve, although named differently, All the stories from Moses to Noah are mention in BOTH the Quran and the Bible.
Although there are some differences where Muslims are generally more stricter in their faith, as they are expected to pray 5 times a day and be more devout than the average Christian.
However as said above, Muslims believe that Jesus was just a prophet, not the son of god, They think there is only one god, in one state and that is spiritual and not in a human form.
Where Christians believe in the holy trinity.
| Quote: |
Mohammed was a christian at first. The he saw a vision of angel "Gabriel" telling him about islam. I personally don't believe that it was Gabriel because Gabriel told Mary about Jesus birth and that all came true. As it is well known that the devil can mascarade himself as the angel of light for that is what he at first was before he rebelled.
It's just so sad that Mohammed has lead astray so many people for Paul clearly warns that even if an angel were to come and preach a different gospel that angel is eternally cursed. Same thing happened to the founder of the mormons; an angel told about this new faith...
There are deceptions around and we must be very careful what we believe. Wink |
Other religions could argue that it was the Christians and Jews that fell short of the true religion.
I believe the Jews dont believe in Jesus and so Christians believe there religion falls short there.
Muslims could say that Islam has been further developed than Christianity and is the true religion.
It can be a circle of who is right and who isnt, but the fundamentals are the same and should be enough to live in peace and harmony. I believe in Islam the "people of the book" as mentioned earlier are seen as more towards Islam than other religions.
Back to the first post, I think its possible if you omit certain things, If you hold your faith in a God and the beliefs about humanity, I dont see why not. Although lots of people would probably have issues with this I guess. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Well many Muslims believe that Christians are Muslims if they submit to God but that Christians Muslims are still missing out in some of the aspects of the religion and that they need to make some changes. |
Fundamental changes. Especially as far as women are concerned.Hello,
| deanhills wrote: |
Is it possible for a person to be both Christian and Muslim at the same time?
| Quote: | Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, a Muslim - Christian?
Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, 55, graduated from Brown University, earned master's degrees from two seminaries, and received her Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City, NY. She felt called to the priesthood; in 1984, she was ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church, USA. She will teach the New Testament as a visiting assistant professor at Seattle University in the fall of 2007. She has a life goal to create an institute to study the three largest monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
In 2005-Fall, a Muslim leader gave a talk at St. Mark's Cathedral where Redding worked. She was moved by his prayer. During 2006-Spring, another Muslim leader taught a chanted prayer to God at a cathedral's inter-faith class. She began reciting the prayer daily. She began to study Islam intensely. in 2006-March, she became a Muslim by reciting the shahada -- "There is no god but God (Allah), and Muhammad is his prophet."
She says that:
"Coming to Islam was like coming into a family with whom I'd been estranged. We have not only the same God, but the same ancestor with Abraham."
|
http://www.religioustolerance.org/bemultfaith1.htm |
As people have mentioned above, it is not possible, not unless you water down and insult both religions. They have contradictory truth claims, so it is a either/or relationship (or none). religion is a way of life. It should be seen as a path to righteousnesss. So yes, you can take the virtues of both the religion and follow them into yuor life. We are not followers of an religion strictly only as what is good to one relirion is generally good to all others..
| deanhills wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Well many Muslims believe that Christians are Muslims if they submit to God but that Christians Muslims are still missing out in some of the aspects of the religion and that they need to make some changes. |
Fundamental changes. Especially as far as women are concerned. |
True. But you also have very large fundamental changes within different sects of Christianity and that's supposed to be the same religion. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| deanhills wrote: | | Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | Well many Muslims believe that Christians are Muslims if they submit to God but that Christians Muslims are still missing out in some of the aspects of the religion and that they need to make some changes. |
Fundamental changes. Especially as far as women are concerned. |
True. But you also have very large fundamental changes within different sects of Christianity and that's supposed to be the same religion. |
Good point. One probably needs to define what christianity is and it is not always very clear. When I was a kid I thought Catholic was separate from Christianity, Christianity being something different that Catholic was. Still very confusing.The question is too hard to answer. I can't imagine if a person have 2 religions or more. For my opinion, it's like a multiple personality syndrome or whatever what syndrome or disease it was called. But nonetheless, it's a nice topic.
| paskifire wrote: |
| The question is too hard to answer. I can't imagine if a person have 2 religions or more. For my opinion, it's like a multiple personality syndrome or whatever what syndrome or disease it was called. But nonetheless, it's a nice topic. |
There is no multiple personality syndrome. If there is understanding that religions dont contradict (they might contradict only at first sight) , you dont need to double, or triple(or whatever) your personality.
So my short answer to original question is: yes.Sup, Isn't religion just a way of life so if you really wanted too and were determined enough i guess you could really live both ways. And nobody is really trying to stop you as it is your life and nobody else can live it for you.
no they cant, she is the devil and she will burn as a sinner in the eternal flames of a very hot hell
This is really interesting thanks HalfBloodPrince. Did not know about the existence of Chrislam, people who adhere to this sect must be called Chrislamists! | ovg8 wrote: |
| Sup, Isn't religion just a way of life so if you really wanted too and were determined enough i guess you could really live both ways. And nobody is really trying to stop you as it is your life and nobody else can live it for you. |
I think you got it, agree totally with this. Some people try to force a belief system or creed on others, but we all know how well that works. Everybody, in the secrecy of their heads at least, believes what they want to believe.
It has been said that the worst ignorance is ignorance that doesn't acknowledge it's ignorance. That's the main problem with rigid religious thought. Fanatically following a single interpretation of a single scripture, and thinking that from that you have the keys of the universe, is quite arrogant and ignorant...
There have been people who have been above religion. They have realized God and so do not need religion anymore.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
The surprising fact here is the
1. Jesus was a Jew!
2. Mohammad was not a Muslim!!!
and most importantly we don't know what religion God belongs to!!!!!!! |
This is so true. God is praised as being the creator of the entire universe, unlimited and omnipotent. Such a being is above all of our petty human faiths. | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| ovg8 wrote: | | Sup, Isn't religion just a way of life so if you really wanted too and were determined enough i guess you could really live both ways. And nobody is really trying to stop you as it is your life and nobody else can live it for you. |
I think you got it, agree totally with this. Some people try to force a belief system or creed on others, but we all know how well that works. Everybody, in the secrecy of their heads at least, believes what they want to believe. |
That's correct, but it's only half the story.
It's true that you are free to believe whatever nonsense you want, without limits - you can believe both Christianity and Islam even though they are both blatantly contradictory, or you can believe that the Earth is spherical and flat at the same time even though that is blatantly contradictory... you can believe whatever you want and no one can tell you otherwise.
But no one has to accept your beliefs, or respect them in any way. To insist that you can believe whatever the hell you want and that everyone else has to just accept that is selfish to the extreme.
Here's a realistic example. Suppose i was your employer, and i offered a certain number of holidays each year for religious reasons. For Christians i would give them days off for Easter, Christmas, etc., for Muslims i would give them days off for Eid-al-Fitr, Eid-al-Adha, etc. In the interest of fairness, i give the same number of days to both Christians and Muslims (and all other religions). Then you walk in and say you're both Christian and Muslim... and thus deserve both sets of days off. Naturally, the first thing i do is check your claim... and find that Christianity and Islam are ideologically incompatible. You can't be both. They contradict. So, logically, i dismiss your claim as nonsense and tell you to choose from the Christian or Muslim holidays.
This is not "forcing" a belief system on you. This is "forcing" you to respect reality - the reality we all have to share. The two belief systems are fundamentally incompatible, and even if you can simply shrug away the incompatibilities in your own mind, reality can't.
If you want to start a new religion that incorporates aspects from both Christianity and Islam, without the contradictions, then go ahead... but it's been done. Over and over. Every time someone dreams up a new religion, they try to include the popular religions of the time. It never ends well. Study your history. When Judaism was drafted, it incorporated the Egyptian mythology of their slave masters... but it certainly didn't end the enslavement or bring peace. When Christianity was being drafted, it incorporated various cults that are now long dead - particularly Mithras - along with Judaism... and look how it treated those cults, and Jews, since then. When Islam was drafted, Muhammad specifically reached out to Jews and Christians... at first, but when they declined his offer, he turned right nasty on them. Even as recently as Protestantism, Luther, at first, tried to reach out to Catholics and Jews... and then turned nasty when they weren't interested.
Seriously, this has all been done before. Over, and over. Over, and over, and over.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| God is praised as being the creator of the entire universe, unlimited and omnipotent. Such a being is above all of our petty human faiths. |
God is not the issue. If you want human acceptance of your religious beliefs, you have to define it on human standards. If you don't want to - or can't - then maybe God will accept your hybrid religion... but society will not. | Indi wrote: |
In the interest of fairness, i give the same number of days to both Christians and Muslims (and all other religions). Then you walk in and say you're both Christian and Muslim... and thus deserve both sets of days off. Naturally, the first thing i do is check your claim... and find that Christianity and Islam are ideologically incompatible. You can't be both. They contradict. So, logically, i dismiss your claim as nonsense and tell you to choose from the Christian or Muslim holidays.
This is not "forcing" a belief system on you. This is "forcing" you to respect reality - the reality we all have to share. The two belief systems are fundamentally incompatible, and even if you can simply shrug away the incompatibilities in your own mind, reality can't.... |
In the case of your hypothetical situation, would it make much of a difference if I was of a dual faith which was ideologically compatible (Baha'i and christian? Hindu-Buddhist?). I'd still be trying to get more days off. A fair boss would be evenhanded: "well you can't have christmas and Bodhi Day both off. Which would you prefer this year?"
Yeah, these labels are something people get hung up on: I'm a Christian, therefore.... I'm a Muslim, therefore....
It is a highly artificial system of classification, because we are all the same species. Take 3 people from the same religion, and their own held beliefs will probably vary quite a bit. But people tend to enjoy categorizing themselves and others into neat little niches, which leads to all sorts of bad assumptions, bigotry, close-mindedness (and genocide! Yay!) etc.
I think one of the worst things humanity is doing is allowing their belief systems to get in the way of unity, mutual respect, peace and understanding.
| Indi wrote: |
| peaceupnorth wrote: | | God is praised as being the creator of the entire universe, unlimited and omnipotent. Such a being is above all of our petty human faiths. |
God is not the issue. If you want human acceptance of your religious beliefs, you have to define it on human standards. If you don't want to - or can't - then maybe God will accept your hybrid religion... but society will not. |
I think this inter-religious squabbling has very little to do with God, and much more to do with clannishness, superstition etc.
Those who believe they know all that is to be known about God, and condemn others for saying differently, are missing the fact that an unlimited, infinite being cannot be comprehended by a limited instrument (human mind).
Like I said last post, there are some who have been above religion, as they have found God. Take this poem from Jalaluddin Rumi as an example of this state:
| the Sufi Saint Rumi wrote: |
What can I do, Submitters to God? I do not know myself.
I am neither Christian nor Jew, neither Zoroastrian nor Muslim,
I am not from east or west, not from land or sea,
not from the shafts of nature nor from the spheres of the firmament,
not of the earth, not of water, not of air, not of fire.
I am not from the highest heaven, not from this world,
not from existence, not from being.
I am not from India, not from China, not from Bulgar, not from Saqsin,
not from the realm of the two Iraqs, not from the land of Khurasan
I am not from the world, not from beyond,
not from heaven and not from hell.
I am not from Adam, not from Eve, not from paradise and not from Ridwan.
My place is placeless, my trace is traceless,
no body, no soul, I am from the soul of souls.
I have chased out duality, lived the two worlds as one.
One I seek, one I know, one I see, one I call.
He is the first, he is the last, he is the outer, he is the inner.
Beyond "He" and "He is" I know no other.
I am drunk from the cup of love, the two worlds have escaped me.
I have no concern but carouse and rapture.
If one day in my life I spend a moment without you
from that hour and that time I would repent my life.
If one day I am given a moment in solitude with you
I will trample the two worlds underfoot and dance forever.
O Sun of Tabriz (Shams Tabrizi), I am so tipsy here in this world,
I have no tale to tell but tipsiness and rapture.
|
I know there might be many who won't appreciate this poem... but I think it is great. For him, there's only the Omnipresent Presence, and even his petty self has disappeared into this vast vision. If only the bigots stopped wasting energy in their squabbling, and instead focused on uncovering the nature of reality and life! Rumi has "found God"... and he's utterly intoxicated and is trying to express the glory of this state of being. | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| In the case of your hypothetical situation, would it make much of a difference if I was of a dual faith which was ideologically compatible (Baha'i and christian? Hindu-Buddhist?). I'd still be trying to get more days off. A fair boss would be evenhanded: "well you can't have christmas and Bodhi Day both off. Which would you prefer this year?" |
Those examples you gave are not compatible. As with Christianity and Islam, they are only compatible if you ignore certain parts of either or both religions.
As for your "fair boss" argument, it's specious and beside the point. If you were willing to simply give up half of your religious holidays for either of your paired religions, then it wouldn't matter - there would be no conflict. Obviously i was only talking about cases where people demand to be allowed to observe both religions, in full, not half of each.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Yeah, these labels are something people get hung up on: I'm a Christian, therefore.... I'm a Muslim, therefore.... |
You're using the labels backwards, which is why they seem pointless to you. You are not "a Christian, therefore...", you are "..., therefore, a Christian". For example, "you believe in the teachings of Jesus, therefore you're a Christian" (obviously, it's not that simple: Christianity is a rich and complicated theological ideology, with associated beliefs in a ton of different fields... you can't boil Christianity (or any religion) down a sentence, but the label provides a convenient shortcut way to describe the entire system... which is why we use it). You are a Christian because of what you believe (presumably Christian beliefs), you don't believe a bunch of crap just because you want to call yourself a Christian.
That is why you can't mix labels that have incompatible beliefs. You can't be a Christian unless you believe the Christian beliefs. If you hack a bunch of those beliefs off in order to accommodate Islam, then you are no longer a Christian.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| It is a highly artificial system of classification, because we are all the same species. |
That a completely absurd statement. Is classifying people by "dead" or "alive" artificial because we are all the same species? Complete nonsense.
It is a classification system based on the set of beliefs you adhere to. There is nothing more artificial about it than there is about any classification system you use for people. The problem is that you really have no respect for these beliefs - you think that all it takes to be Christian is to just stand up and say "i'm Christian" and that's the end of it. It's all just labels to you, so there's no problem with mixing those labels up, or redefining them at will. Rubbish. You can't be Christian unless you subscribe to the Christian doctrine, and if you don't subscribe to the Christian doctrine then you're not Christian. It's as simple as that.
Classifications don't cause hate or ignorance, and they don't get in the way of tolerance or understanding. In fact, classifications are tools for understanding, and they make practical tolerance much easier. Without classifications, you would never be able to understand nearly as many people as you do. With the classification "Christian" for example, you know that everyone who is Christian holds to certain core beliefs. By learning the core beliefs that all Christians (should) have, you learn a little bit about a lot of people... and from there you have a starting point to learn more.
The people that use these classifications as an easy way to target hate are the problem, not the classifications. And if the only thing you can think to use classifications for is for ways to define who to hate, then the problem is with you, not the classifications. Personally, i use them to make communication and understanding easier.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Take 3 people from the same religion, and their own held beliefs will probably vary quite a bit. But people tend to enjoy categorizing themselves and others into neat little niches, which leads to all sorts of bad assumptions, bigotry, close-mindedness (and genocide! Yay!) etc. |
That is a completely absurd slippery slope argument. Categorization doesn't lead to bigotry, stereotyping or genocide. Ignorance and hate do. And ignorance and hate will exist whether categories do or not. If categories didn't exist, the only thing that will be different is ignorance and hate will be random and undirected, and vary wildly from individual to individual.
Peoples' beliefs will vary, even if they are within the same religion. But their religious beliefs that are core to the fundamental doctrine of their religion won't - otherwise they won't be in the same religion. Christians may argue about whether or not it is OK for women to go out in public without a hat, or whether divorce is allowed. But no Christian will say that God doesn't exist, or that he didn't send Jesus to die on the cross for our sins - because those are core beliefs that are fundamental to Christianity. If i come across a Christian, anywhere in the world, at any time in history (within reasonable boundaries, of course), from any culture, speaking any language, or any ethnicity or gender, then i know of some things that they believe... which is the starting point toward communicating. i don't even need to share those beliefs. i just need to know them, and we can talk.
Rather than using categories to define differences, try using them to find starting points toward communication.
In fact, look more carefully at the people who say "throw away the categories", and you will notice a trait that they all share: none of them really respect the diversity of beliefs that everyone has. The people who say "throw away the categories" are also the ones who say things like "we all believe in the same things, or the same gods, so let's throw aside our differences and get along". That is incredibly disrespectful to other people's beliefs. Instead of telling them that the uniqueness of their beliefs is just an annoyance that doesn't really matter, why not try using the categories to understand the uniqueness of their beliefs? Without casting judgment on them. | Indi wrote: |
| In fact, look more carefully at the people who say "throw away the categories", and you will notice a trait that they all share: none of them really respect the diversity of beliefs that everyone has. The people who say "throw away the categories" are also the ones who say things like "we all believe in the same things, or the same gods, so let's throw aside our differences and get along". That is incredibly disrespectful to other people's beliefs. Instead of telling them that the uniqueness of their beliefs is just an annoyance that doesn't really matter, why not try using the categories to understand the uniqueness of their beliefs? Without casting judgment on them. |
Ah haha
O Indi, it sounds like you are committing the error I just tried to detail. So... the "throw away the category" category of people are all wrong then? You speak as if you've met all of them personally... They all are direspectful of diversity? They should try to understand the uniqueness of other's beliefs? What about the uniqueness of their belief? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your tone suggests that you believe "they" are wrong and you and your method is right...
| Indi wrote: |
| That a completely absurd statement. Is classifying people by "dead" or "alive" artificial because we are all the same species? Complete nonsense. |
Yeah, I guess I meant to say "Religions are vague categories. It isn't like we are different species".
To elaborate: humans often tend to build places of worship, praise a higher power, and follow a charismatic teacher of some sort. Most religious beliefs have this in common. The actual members of the cloudy categories called "religions" often differ greatly in their beliefs. What makes a Christian christian? Do they all go to church? no. Do they all believe Jesus to be saviour? no. Do they all even have love for him? Probably not! Are there some people who bow to Mecca and also believe in reincarnation? Plenty! And in many areas religious beliefs do comingle and blend... hindu-buddhism in Bali and thailand, muslims/christian shrines in jordan. Point being: people may be categorizable to a certain extent according to their belief, but it is artificial and denies a more complex reality. It also denies validity to beliefs such as those claimed by the lady that inspired this post. | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| So... the "throw away the category" category of people are all wrong then? You speak as if you've met all of them personally... |
i don't need to meet all of them personally to know that they're all wrong, any more than i would need to meet everyone who believes the Earth is flat to know they're all wrong. They're not wrong because of who they are. They are wrong because what they believe is incorrect. That makes them wrong.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| They all are direspectful of diversity? They should try to understand the uniqueness of other's beliefs? What about the uniqueness of their belief? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but your tone suggests that you believe "they" are wrong and you and your method is right... |
That is correct. They are disrespectful of diversity and they should try to understand the uniqueness of their belief. And what about the uniqueness of their belief? i never implied their belief wasn't unique or that there was nothing special about it or that it's the same as what everyone believes... i just said it's wrong. It's unique. But it's wrong. There's no contradiction there.
i still think you don't understand what it means to respect diversity. Respecting diversity doesn't mean that you have to think everyone's right (or that no-one's wrong). It just means that you have to acknowledge that different people believe different things... and that's ok. Some are right, some are wrong. Some i agree with, some i don't.
Maybe an example will help:
Person who respects diversity: "Your beliefs are different from mine. i want to understand why they're different, without changing them or devaluing them. i don't care if we don't agree, and i don't care if our beliefs contradict. You have your beliefs and i have mine, and that's ok."
Person who does not respect diversity: "i know you think your beliefs are different from mine, but they're not. i know you think your beliefs are unique, or special, but they're not. All of our beliefs are really the same. If you don't see that, that's because you're ignorant or arrogant, and just want to fight... because if you really wanted to peacefully coexist you'd agree with my opinion (that we're all the same inside)."
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | That a completely absurd statement. Is classifying people by "dead" or "alive" artificial because we are all the same species? Complete nonsense. |
Yeah, I guess I meant to say "Religions are vague categories. It isn't like we are different species".
To elaborate: humans often tend to build places of worship, praise a higher power, and follow a charismatic teacher of some sort. Most religious beliefs have this in common. The actual members of the cloudy categories called "religions" often differ greatly in their beliefs. What makes a Christian christian? Do they all go to church? no. Do they all believe Jesus to be saviour? no. Do they all even have love for him? Probably not! Are there some people who bow to Mecca and also believe in reincarnation? Plenty! And in many areas religious beliefs do comingle and blend... hindu-buddhism in Bali and thailand, muslims/christian shrines in jordan. Point being: people may be categorizable to a certain extent according to their belief, but it is artificial and denies a more complex reality. It also denies validity to beliefs such as those claimed by the lady that inspired this post. |
Actually, all Christians do believe Jesus to be saviour. i don't know what you mean by "have love for him", but you don't have to go to church to be Christian.
People who bow to Mecca and believe in reincarnation? i'm sure they are some. But they can't be Muslim.
No, religious beliefs do not "comingle" and blend - religious people do. So when a bunch of Christians and a bunch of Muslims form a community, it becomes a mixed Christian/Muslim community... but the Muslims are still Muslims and the Christians are still Christians. People don't lose their cultural identities just because the mix with other people.
And there is nothing wrong with building a shrine or a temple to many different religions. It doesn't make those religions mix, it just makes a temple that has multiple uses. If i build a toilet next to the dinner table, it doesn't make shitting and eating the same thing, it just makes a place where i can do two different things at the same time.
So your "point being" is wrong. There is no "complex reality". There is just denying people's unique cultural and religious identities for your own personal view of how you think reality should be: homogeneous.
And it does not "deny validity" to Redding's claims to tell her that she can have whatever beliefs she wants to have... but she can't be Muslim or Christian unless she actually follows the Muslim or Christian rules. It doesn't matter what she wants to call herself, she is what she is. That is not "denying validity" to her beliefs, it is denying validity to her attempts to rewrite Christianity and Islam to suit her political aims. Her beliefs are her beliefs, and they are unique - but her beliefs are not Christian beliefs, and they are not Muslim beliefs. If she wants to call them so, fine... but she's wrong. | Indi wrote: |
i still think you don't understand what it means to respect diversity. Respecting diversity doesn't mean that you have to think everyone's right (or that no-one's wrong). It just means that you have to acknowledge that different people believe different things... and that's ok. Some are right, some are wrong. Some i agree with, some i don't. |
well, you seem to be putting my arguments into that category, but I don't believe that they disrespected human diversity of belief. Thank you, however, for pointing out how my argument could be construed as being disrespectful.
My main point was that people let their differences, particularly in religious belief, get in the way of harmony and goodwill. My other point was that rigid categorization of human belief is artificial and does not represent reality, nor does it promote respect as you claim it does. I will elaborate on this below.
| Indi wrote: |
| No, religious beliefs do not "comingle" and blend - religious people do. So when a bunch of Christians and a bunch of Muslims form a community, it becomes a mixed Christian/Muslim community... but the Muslims are still Muslims and the Christians are still Christians. People don't lose their cultural identities just because the mix with other people. |
You seem to be saying that religious beliefs are separate from the people that hold them. How can this be possible? People do hold mixed beliefs...
| Indi wrote: |
| People who bow to Mecca and believe in reincarnation? i'm sure they are some. But they can't be Muslim. |
Yes, they are Muslims.......
| Indi wrote: |
| So your "point being" is wrong. There is no "complex reality". |
what about Thai Buddhism? They have shrines to Brahma, Ganesh and Saraswati in their temples...
And Sufi Islam in India?
And Catholicism among traditional people in Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela etc. Definitely very mixed with the native religions and beliefs.
This is what I call a "complex reality." Religions do lay down rules about how people should believe, it is true, but even that is subject to controversy between staunch adherents of that faith. Thus a group of Christiansis may all believe Jesus is the savior, but their beliefs about salvation will probably take many different forms.
| Indi wrote: |
| There is just denying people's unique cultural and religious identities for your own personal view of how you think reality should be: homogeneous. |
That is a misrepresentation. I never said that people should all believe the same thing. I did say it would be valuable if people strive to find some common ground... and acknowledge there's some mixing and gray area between these categories called religions. But if I heard you right, you said that anybody who attempts such a thing is both wrong and stupid. I suppose we must agree to disagree on this point. | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| My main point was that people let their differences, particularly in religious belief, get in the way of harmony and goodwill. |
And this is the point that i find highly objectionable. Because it is exactly the same as saying that different colours of skin get in the way of harmony and goodwill... so does that make different skin colours a problem? No, of course not.
You could also say different cultures, or different languages, or different whatever... it's all the same idea. You are trying to make it bad to differ, and trying to argue that we should just pretend everyone is of the same race (or culture, or language, or whatever) so we can get along.
i am saying no: let the differences ring out. Let people be proud to be a different colour (or culture, or... etc.). Let's not ignore the differences, let's celebrate them. Let's make a point of pointing out differences.
Because the problem is not the differences, as you think. The problem is the people (and the ideologies) who make the differences a problem. They are what should be played down (and ultimately made meaningless), not the differences.
And if it makes sense to categorize races (or cultures, or...) then by gum do it! And it does make sense, in many cases - especially when you're studying something related to the topic. But even in other situations it makes sense! For example, doesn't it make sense to create a "black" racial category, when it is a medical fact that people who carry those colour genes are also likely to carry the sickle-cell genes? A doctor could then say, "hm, what's wrong with this patient... well, he's black, which means sickle-cell is likely, so i'll check that earlier than i would for someone of a colour that doesn't carry the trait as often."
It makes sense to categorize religions, too - for many reasons, and not just for the sake of scholarship. The first practical example that pops in my head: most governments subsidize religion with public money in various ways, even if only in tax breaks for religious organizations. Now i disagree with this, but it is a fact that it happens. So how does the government know how much money to allow any given religion to claim? If only 2% of the population is Hindu, but Hindu organizations are taking up 80% of the tax cuts, Houston we have a problem. We need a clear-cut way to distinguish religions to be fair with such tax cuts.
And of course there are a ton of other practical reasons to categorize religions. Denying this as a useful practice in order to downplay "differences" between religions, just because some bozos use that as a reason for being trouble, is a disservice to both the religions involved, and humanity in general.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| My other point was that rigid categorization of human belief is artificial and does not represent reality, nor does it promote respect as you claim it does. I will elaborate on this below. |
i'm sorry, i still don't understand your logic. The categorization is as artificial as the religions themselves. What do you mean by artificial, and why is being artificial a bad thing for categories? If by artificial you mean "totally made up out of whole cloth", that's just wrong - the categorizations have very real bases. But if by artificial you mean "not real things", well then yeah, but so what? Words are artificial in that sense, too, but they're hardly pointless. The only thing that matters for categories are whether they are meaningful, and whether they are useful. Clearly both of these standards are met.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | No, religious beliefs do not "comingle" and blend - religious people do. So when a bunch of Christians and a bunch of Muslims form a community, it becomes a mixed Christian/Muslim community... but the Muslims are still Muslims and the Christians are still Christians. People don't lose their cultural identities just because the mix with other people. |
You seem to be saying that religious beliefs are separate from the people that hold them. How can this be possible? People do hold mixed beliefs... |
?
Yes, of course people are separate from their beliefs. If you're a Christian, and you die, Christianity doesn't die. You can change your beliefs at any time without changing who you are, and you can change everything about who you are without changing your beliefs.
And yes, of course people hold mixed beliefs... but if they do hold a mixed Christian/Muslim belief then they are neither Christian nor Muslim anymore, but some kind of hybrid.
Aren't these points obvious? You don't really believe people are defined by their religious beliefs, are you?
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | People who bow to Mecca and believe in reincarnation? i'm sure they are some. But they can't be Muslim. |
Yes, they are Muslims....... |
No, they are Sufis. Sufism is related to Islam - quite closely - but not the same.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | So your "point being" is wrong. There is no "complex reality". |
what about Thai Buddhism? They have shrines to Brahma, Ganesh and Saraswati in their temples...
And Sufi Islam in India?
And Catholicism among traditional people in Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela etc. Definitely very mixed with the native religions and beliefs. |
To repeat myself yet again: you can mix people of different beliefs without mixing the beliefs. That is why you can have populations that have both native religions and then imported religions. You can also mix different beliefs together to create a new belief... but then it is a new belief. It stops being either of the old beliefs (although, in rare cases, if the two beliefs are not incompatible (not if you don't think they're incompatible, or if you say they're not incompatible... if they actually are compatible, theologically), you can still call yourself one or the other without contradiction).
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| This is what I call a "complex reality." Religions do lay down rules about how people should believe, it is true, but even that is subject to controversy between staunch adherents of that faith. Thus a group of Christiansis may all believe Jesus is the savior, but their beliefs about salvation will probably take many different forms. |
Which is why most major religions have subcategories made up of these theological differences. For example Christianity has Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, and Islam has Sunni and Shi'ite. The point is that although Sunni and Shi'ite may quibble over details of who was next in line, they both hold that Mohammad was the final prophet - and that is what makes them Muslim (among other things). So when someone says they are Muslim, i know - without either knowing or caring about whether they are Sunni or Shi'a - that i shouldn't serve pork for dinner. Categories in action, yet again.
| peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | There is just denying people's unique cultural and religious identities for your own personal view of how you think reality should be: homogeneous. |
That is a misrepresentation. I never said that people should all believe the same thing. I did say it would be valuable if people strive to find some common ground... and acknowledge there's some mixing and gray area between these categories called religions. But if I heard you right, you said that anybody who attempts such a thing is both wrong and stupid. I suppose we must agree to disagree on this point. |
You say on the one hand "I never said that people should all believe the same thing."... and then right after "I did say it would be valuable if people strive to find some common ground."... and you don't see any problems with that? You are literally saying, in short, "everyone shouldn't believe the same thing, it would just be nice if they did (or could find ways to make it seem like they do)."
Sometimes there is no common ground, and so what? That's not a bad thing. There doesn't need to be common ground. Two groups can believe two creeds as wildly different and completely contradictory as they come. There is no reason they can't still get along by simply accepting that they're totally different, and that that's ok. There is absolutely no reason that they have to find ways that their beliefs overlap before they can get along. That is just wrong and stupid, and i have no qualms about saying it again. | Indi wrote: |
| Sometimes there is no common ground, and so what? That's not a bad thing. There doesn't need to be common ground. Two groups can believe two creeds as wildly different and completely contradictory as they come. There is no reason they can't still get along by simply accepting that they're totally different, and that that's ok. There is absolutely no reason that they have to find ways that their beliefs overlap before they can get along. That is just wrong and stupid, and i have no qualms about saying it again. |
Haha ok! You win Indi, and I'm glad for this discussion. What you said about two wildly different groups getting along by accepting that they're totally different, yes, that's nice... and maybe once they do that they may find that they share some common ground (like zealousness, conviction, belief in a God, etc.) and respect each other for it.
A friend of mine is in this situation exactly... a total athiest, but one of her best friends is supremely christian. They just avoid the topic of religion... and talk about clothes and furniture haha. They respect each others strength of conviction, and avoid drawing swords.
All these religions and belief systems are subject to change over time anyway. When people learn to get along, despite differences of opinion, it is paving the way for a more peaceful, openminded future... perhaps where debate doesn't get so nasty and polarized.
