Can we have different beliefs and still have peace.

[loverofhumanity]

I do essentially agree with what you say above, Carlita (in relation to loverofhumanity's view of other faiths). I'll leave loverofhumanity to continue their defence of their view (forgive me, I can't remember whether you identify as a 'he' or a 'she', loverofhumanity).

I'm a humble he. I know you don't accept Baha'u'llah but it's the principle that I agree upon.

The Quran clears up misconceptions Christians have about their Bible and corrects some wrong teachings taught them by their Church.

Did Muhammad have no right to do that? Of course He did because He was a Prophet of God regardless of whether Christians accepted Him or not. The Quran makes these corrections and Christians reject them but that is not to say Muhammad is not connected to Christianity because the Quran says the Torah, the Gospels were all from God. So God has a right over these Holy Books does He not?

But free will means the Christian priest will not accept Muhammad so that is understood. Yes Christians may resent being told they are wrong but God chose to say that in the Quran and He is God. Who's to question Him?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Depends on the holy book in question, and to an extent its age. With the passage of time, I believe that at least some of the original teachings brought by those whose teachings are enshrined in those books have been changed or mixed with other teachings that they did not bring, but are passed off as theirs (so, corrupted in that sense). Or that things are written down that did not in actuality happen. An example - the idea that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified. Is that clearer?

Our understanding is that the body of Jesus was crucified as stated in the New Testament but Christ the Spirit of God was not crucified as stated in the Quran. So both versions are correct. Actually by accepting the resurrection Christians are confirming the Quran that Christ, His Reality wasn't crucified, only His body. Gets interesting doesn't it?

So we understand that body was crucified but not the Reality of Christ which lived on and conquered the world spiritually like Prophet Muhammad did afterwards.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

The Quran clears up misconceptions Christians have about their Bible and corrects some wrong teachings taught them by their Church.

Agreed.

Did Muhammad have no right to do that? Of course He did because He was a Prophet of God regardless of whether Christians accepted Him or not.

Agreed. Although I would go further and say we all have a right to do what Muhammad (pbuh) did.

The Quran makes these corrections and Christians reject them but that is not to say Muhammad is not connected to Christianity because the Quran says the Torah, the Gospels were all from God. So God has a right over these Holy Books does He not?

Agreed, although as I have said already, all holy books have been corrupted.

Yes Christians may resent being told they are wrong but God chose to say that in the Quran and He is God.

Indeed! Same of course goes for Muslims!

Who's to question Him?

We all should question everything in our search for knowledge and Truth.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Agreed.



Agreed. Although I would go further and say we all have a right to do what Muhammad (pbuh) did.



Agreed, although as I have said already, all holy books have been corrupted.



Indeed! Same of course goes for Muslims!



We all should question everything in our search for knowledge and Truth.

Agreed except the only One I never question is God.

 

[loverofhumanity]

God Be With Nonviolent People

https://www.booster.com/god-be-with-nonviolent-people

I would like to see a slogan more positive like:

God be with those who work for world peace and reconciliation

Because just not being violent is not going to bring peace to the world. We need to promote tolerance, oneness, equality and justice. The world is the way it is because not enough people are working towards reconciliation.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Okay.. I will sent your advice to designer

Awesome!

 

[NaomiS]

Can we have different beliefs and still have peace.

If everyone just followed their religion and beliefs we would have peace.

Fundamentalism is the easy way out. Instead of doing the hard work and refining ourselves, we decide that we are already ok and see the need to judge others.

 

[Geoff-Allen]

Peace is not something you fight for
With bombs and missiles that kill,
Nor can it be won in a "battle of words"
One fashions by scheming and skill
For those who are greedy and warlike,
Whose avarice for power cannot cease,
Can never contribute in helping
To bring this world nearer to peace
For in seeking peace for all people
There is only one place to begin
And that is in each home and heart--
For the fortress of peace is within!

Helen Steiner Rice

We can always hope ...

Cheers!

 

[shunyadragon]

Peace is not hardwired into us. Its not possible or realistic.

We can however get to a point of tolerance that's the next best thing. I suppose finding common needs and goals is a worthy start.

The problem with tolerance is a matter of the degree of intolerance, and you have to consider a different world view to be outside your 'sense of identity and community' to consider it necessary to tolerate them. Most ancient religions define their 'sense of identity and community' separate from others who believe differently, and limited to the time the religion was revealed or formed.

 

[Equilibrium]

It's literally impossible for many different reasons. One being that violence, prejudices, and alienation/assimilation of others is in our blood. The second reason is because certain religions advocate violence and intolerance towards those of different religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all.

If every single practitioner of such religion were to completely disregard those teachings, then we could have some sort of tolerance. But, of course, this is absolutely unrealistic.

 

[ajay0]

This is one of the hot questions of the age. Throughout history our opposing beliefs have led to wars, division, hatred and prejudice - anything but peace.

However, now that we can view the entire planet as one globe and have things like the internet, are we now able to finally establish some form of peace?

What if there was only one thing you had to believe for the world to have peace. Would you embrace it? And you could get to keep your own belief as well.

If all you had to accept was that all humans are your equal could you do that? Could you accept all humanity as your equal?

Sounds easy doesn't it? But in practise we have been unable to do it without allowing our nationality, race, religion or culture to interfere causing further conflict.

So whatever our religion or as an atheist or any other position are we aware we might be erecting barriers unknowingly between us and our fellow man?

Isn't peace up to all of us and not just the politicians? Shouldn't our attitude be one of unconditional acceptance of one another if we really want peace? We don't have to always agree but shouldn't we be tolerant?

Great Op.

Conflict has its basis in a dualistic perspective, which is really the creation of thought.

As per an insightful saying of Jiddu Krishnamurti...

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”


Self-identities such as being a Jew, Muslim, engineer, white, black , shia, sunni , catholic , protestant , American, Russian, Iranian, are all just a mass of thoughts clinging to the consciousness.

These identities does not have a substantial basis of its own other than that created by thought.

In Awareness or deep love, there are no thoughts, and hence duality ceases to exist. This is why present-moment awareness or love has been extolled by all religions.

But people are so entrenched in duality that they even use religion as a sort of self-identity to maintain duality instead of using it as a tool to transcend thought and thereby duality and create harmony in turn.

Thought is great in terms of planning and material activities, but counterproductive in terms of human relationships both on an individual or collective scale. One needs to know when to use it and when to switch it off and wisdom lies in this.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Great Op.

Conflict has its basis in a dualistic perspective, which is really the creation of thought.

As per an insightful saying of Jiddu Krishnamurti...

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”


Self-identities such as being a Jew, Muslim, engineer, white, black , shia, sunni , catholic , protestant , American, Russian, Iranian, are all just a mass of thoughts clinging to the consciousness.

These identities does not have a substantial basis of its own other than that created by thought.

In Awareness or deep love, there are no thoughts, and hence duality ceases to exist. This is why present-moment awareness or love has been extolled by all religions.

But people are so entrenched in duality that they even use religion as a sort of self-identity to maintain duality instead of using it as a tool to transcend thought and thereby duality and create harmony in turn.

Thought is great in terms of planning and material activities, but counterproductive in terms of human relationships both on an individual or collective scale.

Beautiful spirit in your post. I think society gets too carried away with labels. All we need to do is simply see the humanity in each other and we can have a beautiful world. Thank you.

 

[crowfeather]

It is very strange the way humans see nothing besides humanity, discount everything but humanity, believe everything is only about humanity.
Peace comes from discovering life's meaning, purpose, and divinity. That's Life, not the diseased fragment known as humanity.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is very strange the way humans see nothing besides humanity, discount everything but humanity, believe everything is only about humanity.
Peace comes from discovering life's meaning, purpose, and divinity. That's Life, not the diseased fragment known as humanity.

I believe in the brotherhood of all men. What do you believe?

 

[crowfeather]

I believe in nothing. I know what I know. I know humans exist separately from everything that sustains them. Which is the reason so many of them are the way they are.
If humans are all you can see, you're 99% blind.

 

[arjuna]

(Between Jew, Christian and Muslim). Can a shared historical narrative be reconstructed? Would the call to non-division bring just as much despair and violence as our current call to be three separate entities each favored by God and sanctioned to continue to use violence to prove rightness and 'cause'? It is my argument that the gospel author John's call was to 'before Abraham' and reconciling the historical narrative in Jesus. Mysterious in this was John's use of 'woman' and the 'beloved disciple'.

 

[syo]

World Day of Prayer for Peace

 

[shunyadragon]

The problem with ancient religions is the failure to acknowledge that scripture and beliefs of each religion is incomplete, and greatly influence by the cultural view of the time they were revealed. They may accept the progression of Revelation up to their own religion, but they will not acknowledge the progression of Revelation beyond their own religion, nor the possibility of the corruption of there own religion. The different ancient religions definitely do have the burden of cultural identity that does not reflect the diverse cultures of humanity, and that cultural identity is imposed on those that convert to the religion

I believe Revelation is progressive with an element of renewal and rebirth of the foundation beliefs of the eternal universal spiritual nature of humanity, which is not reflected in any one ancient religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

The problem with ancient religions is the failure to acknowledge that scripture and beliefs of each religion is incomplete, and greatly influence by the cultural view of the time they were revealed. They may accept the progression of Revelation up to their own religion, but they will not acknowledge the progression of Revelation beyond their own religion, nor the possibility of the corruption of there own religion. The different ancient religions definitely do have the burden of cultural identity that does not reflect the diverse cultures of humanity, and that cultural identity is imposed on those that convert to the religion

I believe Revelation is progressive with an element of renewal and rebirth of the foundation beliefs of the eternal universal spiritual nature of humanity, which is not reflected in any one ancient religion.

Practitioners of ancient religions would disagree, obviously.

 

[shunyadragon]

Practitioners of ancient religions would disagree, obviously.

Obviously true, because they see the reality of our spiritual and physical existence ONLY through the perspective of their own cultural perspective, and of course rejecting all others in one way or another.

I believe there is a more universal perspective for our spiritual reality.

Actually, I acknowledge the possibility of a materialist explanation for universal nature of all of existence, and it is more rational and logical than any one ancient religion.