New religions depending on older ones

[Sirona]

After having read some of the latest argumentative attempts to “unify” us all under a relatively new variant of monotheism, I felt reminded of something I read, but I just couldn‘t find it anymore, so I‘ll put the “bones” here without the “flesh”. What I wish to discuss is the following:

Many newly emerging religions devalue older religions by making polemical statements about their content, while at the same time depending on these older religions by deriving their reason for existence from them.

In other words, the older religions got it all wrong but these faulty religions are right because they predicted ours.

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

1. No. It doesn't make a bit of sense to claim that a religion got things wrong except for parts you think you can use to your advantage. It's very dishonest, too.

2. No. It's extremely offensive and arrogant. They think they know better what someone else's religion "actually" says than they do. This just breeds more ill-will and distrust.

 

[Terry Sampson]

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

"Replacement theologies" can describe themselves in any number of "logically coherent" ways, but they are what they claim to be: replacements.

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

I have yet to see a "replacement theology" achieving complete and successful replacement without violence of some sort, verbal if not physical. Most of what passes for self-described innocent inquiry and discussion is replacement theology in denial.

 

[Dawnofhope]

After having read some of the latest argumentative attempts to “unify” us all under a relatively new variant of monotheism, I felt reminded of something I read, but I just couldn‘t find it anymore, so I‘ll put the “bones” here without the “flesh”. What I wish to discuss is the following:

Many newly emerging religions devalue older religions by making polemical statements about their content, while at the same time depending on these older religions by deriving their reason for existence from them.

In other words, the older religions got it all wrong but these faulty religions are right because they predicted ours.

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

To answer your questions one needs to consider religious history. It is common place for a new religion to build on what has gone before. If there were no problems with the older religion then there wouldn’t be any need for a new religion.

For example, Christianity built on Judaism. Christ was a critic of Judaism as it stood at that time while affirming core Teachings of the Hebrew Bible. The Teachings of Christ enabled the Hebrew religion to be much more accessible to a wider audience than Judaism could IMHO. Muhammad did something similar with both Judaism and Christianity.

Obviously such an approach resulted in animosity from some who supported the older religions and objected to the criticism of the newer religious Teachers. However there were adherents of the older religions who recognised the need for reform.

Similarly, Buddhism emerged from the Indian subcontinent and Buddha was a critic of religion of His day. He made clear how to achieve enlightenment by building on what had gone before.

That’s how I see it. One man’s medicine is another’s poison.

 

[sun rise]

Revealed religions to me are the consequence of the life and teachings of the founder whether that founder be labeled Christ, Prophet, Avatar.

They are structures of life which, like anything related to life, are born, grow, mature and finally die.

The human beings who are involved with the new religion stereotypically act from limitations and ego and often want to promote their religion as the best.

But my focus is on the founder and the life and message of the founder not on the religion. And as such, this song, excerpted below, speaks to me.

Song of the Avatars

When righteousness declines
And wickedness is strong,
In the dying of an age
As a new age comes along,
That is when I rise again
And yet again to light the flame
Of truth within the sons of men.
...
When darkness seeks to hold
The hears of men in fear,
When men cry out for help
And no one seems to hear,
That is when I rise again
To shatter forms enslaving men
To let a newer world be born.

I am Light.
I am Truth.
I am the freedom of the Son.
I am the destiny of Man,
The triumph of the One.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

Logical from they're view but not highly accepted. Unfortunately, one needs full agreement on all people's individual terms to unify. Many don't mind working together but it takes more consensus than to have one foot on either side of the fence.

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

Definitely not. The close we get on things like charity and interfaith dialogue events. I've been to a couple. No one steps on others toes.

The Buddhist temple I went to, though, the owners would be quite insulted if I didn't take off my shoes just because they welcomed me to sit at the dinning table.

In other words, the older religions got it all wrong but these faulty religions are right because they predicted ours.

A bit ironic, yes.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

After having read some of the latest argumentative attempts to “unify” us all under a relatively new variant of monotheism, I felt reminded of something I read, but I just couldn‘t find it anymore, so I‘ll put the “bones” here without the “flesh”. What I wish to discuss is the following:

Many newly emerging religions devalue older religions by making polemical statements about their content, while at the same time depending on these older religions by deriving their reason for existence from them.

In other words, the older religions got it all wrong but these faulty religions are right because they predicted ours.

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

The older religions like Hinduism for example, are more valid than the Abrahamic faiths today (Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam).
Jesus understood the value and why He went there and studied, as well as in Egypt and the "mystery schools".
But Jesus was gnostic too, and the thought that is "Gnosticism" predates ALL "religions",
as it goes all the way back to Seth, son of Adam.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

After having read some of the latest argumentative attempts to “unify” us all under a relatively new variant of monotheism, I felt reminded of something I read, but I just couldn‘t find it anymore, so I‘ll put the “bones” here without the “flesh”. What I wish to discuss is the following:

Many newly emerging religions devalue older religions by making polemical statements about their content, while at the same time depending on these older religions by deriving their reason for existence from them.

In other words, the older religions got it all wrong but these faulty religions are right because they predicted ours.

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

I think what is good to note is that it is possible that one can view Faith and not Devalue it in any way, by showing that it is inclusive of other Faiths.

Personally I see that in nature we see this renewal at all times and we recognize without question that, that is the way God has given creation to us, or is the way of nature. A tree 1000 years old rots and falls to the ground, but the seeds from that tree are renewed in another that grows from it. This is just one example.

Thus the only devalue we may find in Faith, is a devalue of our own perceptions. We may see that the 1000 year old tree will never be renewed and we, no matter what, will hold only to that tree.

Regards Tony

 

[Twilight Hue]

After having read some of the latest argumentative attempts to “unify” us all under a relatively new variant of monotheism, I felt reminded of something I read, but I just couldn‘t find it anymore, so I‘ll put the “bones” here without the “flesh”. What I wish to discuss is the following:

Many newly emerging religions devalue older religions by making polemical statements about their content, while at the same time depending on these older religions by deriving their reason for existence from them.

In other words, the older religions got it all wrong but these faulty religions are right because they predicted ours.

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

Maybe it's because as religions progress and change with the times, the older ones seem less relevant and applicable as new information and advances become available that may or may not bolster the original belief or practice.

I think that plays a large role between traditional and progressive ideologies.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Maybe it's because as religions progress and change with the times, the older ones seem less relevant and applicable as new information and advances become available that may or may not bolster the original belief or practice.

I think that plays a large role between traditional and progressive ideologies.

This is mostly making it a black and white. Past or present. Tradition is valuable in many religious but to progress outside of tradition is just as bad as changing it to be inclusive of all faith intentions.

The only people who "should" change the faith or morph it are its practitioners not it's allies.

 

[Terry Sampson]

it takes more consensus than to have one foot on either side of the fence.

Mugwumps rule, eh?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Mugwumps rule, eh?

What?

 

[Ancient Soul]

After having read some of the latest argumentative attempts to “unify” us all under a relatively new variant of monotheism, I felt reminded of something I read, but I just couldn‘t find it anymore, so I‘ll put the “bones” here without the “flesh”. What I wish to discuss is the following:

Many newly emerging religions devalue older religions by making polemical statements about their content, while at the same time depending on these older religions by deriving their reason for existence from them.

In other words, the older religions got it all wrong but these faulty religions are right because they predicted ours.

1. Do you think this opinion is logically coherent?

2. Do you think such an attitude is beneficial to achieving friendly relations between religions?

I'm voting for #3.

3. Do you think that ALL religions are composed of man made lies and should be wiped from the face of the earth?

 

[Ancient Soul]

This is mostly making it a black and white. Past or present. Tradition is valuable in many religious but to progress outside of tradition is just as bad as changing it to be inclusive of all faith intentions.

The only people who "should" change the faith or morph it are its practitioners not it's allies.

But even changes within the cult automatically infers that it was WRONG to begin with, which brings the WHOLE dogma into question. So it's therefore not likely to be changed due to ego insecurities. As ALL religions think that ONLY THEY have it "right" and everybody else has it "wrong". So the embarrassment would be to much of a crushing blow to their bloated egos.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But even changes within the cult automatically infers that it was WRONG to begin with, which brings the WHOLE dogma into question. So it's therefore not likely to be changed due to ego insecurities. As ALL religions think that ONLY THEY have it "right" and everybody else has it "wrong". So the embarrassment would be to much of a crushing blow to their bloated egos.

I can care less about their egos personally. Like anything. Of it isn't yours (you don't identify with that faith) it's not your place to change it.

Your-people in general

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The older religions like Hinduism for example, are more valid than the Abrahamic faiths today (Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, Islam).
Jesus understood the value and why He went there and studied, as well as in Egypt and the "mystery schools".
But Jesus was gnostic too, and the thought that is "Gnosticism" predates ALL "religions",
as it goes all the way back to Seth, son of Adam.

Jesus neither visited India nor was he a gnostic. You are doing exactly the thing this thread is about -- reinventing Jesus to serve the needs of your own newfangled religion.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Jesus neither visited India nor was he a gnostic. You are doing exactly the thing this thread is about -- reinventing Jesus to serve the needs of your own newfangled religion.

Do some homework, then you can call me a liar .

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do some homework, then you can call me a liar .

I never called you a liar. Being honestly mistaken is not the same as lying. Basically, there simply is no evidence for what you claim. They are urban myths.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I never called you a liar. Being honestly mistaken is not the same as lying. Basically, there simply is no evidence for what you claim. They are urban myths.

well, then go to India and Egypt and find out...
until then, you are "honestly mistaken".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

well, then go to India and Egypt and find out...
until then, you are "honestly mistaken".

well, then go to India and Egypt and find out...
until then, you are "honestly mistaken".

Going to India and Egypt are not going to help me find out. A careful search of the original source documents of the time, or at least of the scholars who have studied them is what is pertinant.