the word

[Immanuel Can]

Dear Thedoc:

I understand the question, however, I also see a problem: it's really only from the position of never having studied world traditions deeply that their reconcilability seems plausible. Any detailed study quickly raises such profound problems for that view that it cannot be rationally sustained.

Any deep engagement with World Religions quickly reveals profound differences at the most basic level. The various traditions do not agree about such things as the nature of "the Real," or the number or identity of Divine Beings, their relationship to the cosmos, anthropology, anthropogyny, or the teleology of human life; and consequently, they end up disagreeing as well on the matters that issue rationally from them, such as meaning, values and ethics. Equally importantly, all these traditions also claim exclusive value of some kind -- meaning the idea that the human race is, in some profound way, far better off for accepting their view of these issues than not accepting it -- so that other traditions, even if they contain elements of truth, are at best second best, and at worst outright wrong.

The upshot: we all end up having to deny or downgrade the "truth" value of other traditions relative to the one we see as most rational. There's really no way to get around that. Even people who instinctively regard themselves as total "inclusivists" admit that they think being inclusive is better than being exclusive (i.e. that exclusive traditions are wrong on that point at least, and so cannot really be "included" in truth on that point). Again, the inclusivists are obliged to believe the exclusive traditions (such as all the major Western religions, including Atheism, as well as Islam and those in the Eastern tradition that are limitedly inclusive, such as Hinduism) are profoundly mistaken about the true nature of their own belief, and need instruction from inclusivists to know what they really ought to believe.

Not very inclusive, really: scratch the surface of that view, and you find intolerance.

[thedoc]

Dear Thedoc:

I understand the question, however, I also see a problem: it's really only from the position of never having studied world traditions deeply that their reconcilability seems plausible. Any detailed study quickly raises such profound problems for that view that it cannot be rationally sustained.

Any deep engagement with World Religions quickly reveals profound differences at the most basic level. The various traditions do not agree about such things as the nature of "the Real," or the number or identity of Divine Beings, their relationship to the cosmos, anthropology, anthropogyny, or the teleology of human life; and consequently, they end up disagreeing as well on the matters that issue rationally from them, such as meaning, values and ethics. Equally importantly, all these traditions also claim exclusive value of some kind -- meaning the idea that the human race is, in some profound way, far better off for accepting their view of these issues than not accepting it -- so that other traditions, even if they contain elements of truth, are at best second best, and at worst outright wrong.

The upshot: we all end up having to deny or downgrade the "truth" value of other traditions relative to the one we see as most rational. There's really no way to get around that. Even people who instinctively regard themselves as total "inclusivists" admit that they think being inclusive is better than being exclusive (i.e. that exclusive traditions are wrong on that point at least, and so cannot really be "included" in truth on that point). Again, the inclusivists are obliged to believe the exclusive traditions (such as all the major Western religions, including Atheism, as well as Islam and those in the Eastern tradition that are limitedly inclusive, such as Hinduism) are profoundly mistaken about the true nature of their own belief, and need instruction from inclusivists to know what they really ought to believe.

Not very inclusive, really: scratch the surface of that view, and you find intolerance.

Thankyou, that pretty much sums up the problems with the first part of my question, but seems to ignore the second. Yes the existing established religions claim that their way is the only way, but I am asking is there anyone who can accept that all religions have some aspect of the truth but not all.

For myself, I can see some truth in all the spiritual teachings I have studied, but I can also see a great deal of false teaching that must be discarded in order to get a true understanding.

Intolerance is the final result of the first part of the question, and therefore must be rejected. I also reject the claim by some religions that God has spoken only and exclusively to them, in my opinion God can speak to whomever God wants to whenever God wants to, and that includes beings that do not live on Earth.

[Immanuel Can]

Thankyou, that pretty much sums up the problems with the first part of my question, but seems to ignore the second. Yes the existing established religions claim that their way is the only way, but I am asking is there anyone who can accept that all religions have some aspect of the truth but not all.

Sorry, Thedoc. My fault. Feel free to call me on anything I forget.

Yes, I quite agree. Perhaps some people imagine that the rightness of one view entails the complete and total wrongness of everyone else, but I think such an idea is impossible to sustain with any evidence. There are only three rational positions on the existence of God; but anyone who chooses any one of those finds himself agreeing with a number of other traditions on that sole point, if on no other; so I don't see it's even possible for a rational person to say "Other traditions have NO truth in them." And I certainly don't think it's rationally necessary even for an adherent of an exclusivist tradition to say, "Everyone else is just plumb crazy" in order to be faithful to the content of his/her own belief.

The problem, of course, is that the presence of a bit of truth, or even of a lot of truth, does not guarantee the goodness of the whole. A tradition could even be *mostly* truthful, but be grossly errant on one important point, and thus become hideously misdirected and even what we would call "evil" in its outcome. So the matter has to be precisely parsed, with a real-world examination of what each tradition holds. What we cannot do is necessarily conclude that because *part* of a belief is wholesome, the entirety is. Its wholesomeness stands or falls on both the particular and the totality.

So then, the question becomes this: with what "search engine" do we discern among the various teachings of the various world traditions, to see what's good and what's not?

God can speak to whomever God wants to whenever God wants to

I think that's pretty clearly true -- one definition of God might be "The One who can do what He wants." But the stunning part of your statement I find is the first part: the idea that God might "speak." What an idea.

[thedoc]

God can speak to whomever God wants to whenever God wants to

I think that's pretty clearly true -- one definition of God might be "The One who can do what He wants." But the stunning part of your statement I find is the first part: the idea that God might "speak." What an idea.

I'll give the rest of your post some thought and answer later, but this part struck me now. Some years ago I wrote a piece about Prayer. Prayer seems to be a big issue with many religions especially Christianity. But too many people treat Prayer as a letter to Santa Clause of things they want, all misunderstood because of the promise in the Bible that whatever we ask for will be granted. In the piece I wrote I proposed that Prayer was more properly listening, and not just for some big voice thundering out of the clouds. What if God was speaking with the voice of one of your friends, or a child. What we really need to do is to be open to all means for God to speak to us even when God is saying something we don't want to hear.

I think I'll go to bed now and maybe I'll have more later. G'nite.

[Immanuel Can]

Agreed.

Sleep well.

[thedoc]

So then, the question becomes this: with what "search engine" do we discern among the various teachings of the various world traditions, to see what's good and what's not?

According to the Bible, God has written his law on our hearts, so that whatever we hear of read will resonate with what we already know. We can read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Buddhist Sutra's, or any other religious text and the correct parts will be recognized as such. Conversely passages that don't feel right would warrant closer examination and possibly rejection. The church I attend employs a woman Pastor and the ELCA condones the ordination of women into the ministry, clearly we are in violation of a passage in one of Paul's letters that requires women to be silent in church.

Have you ever seen a movie production of 'The Mahabharata'? The local PBS station broadcast it once and I recorded it on VHS and watched it once or twice again. I really felt comfortable with it and enjoyed the story.

[Immanuel Can]

The church I attend employs a woman Pastor and the ELCA condones the ordination of women into the ministry, clearly we are in violation of a passage in one of Paul's letters that requires women to be silent in church.

I'm missing your point here. You can't be saying, "What my church does is automatically good," can you? If, as you say, they stand in violation of their founding document, then what justifies that move as a "higher spirtual" kind of choice?

the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, Buddhist Sutra's

Read it, read it, read it,..and read them...and I also read the Tao, the Gita, the Dhammapada, bits of Mormon...and a bunch of bits and pieces of other things. Yes, there are true statements in all of them, and equally we find questionable, uncertain, wrong or flatly absurd statements within this discordant group you name as well. The problem is not that there are truths in all traditions, but that there are clearly lies and mistakes in at least some of them. And what is a lie but the blending of much truth with selective untruth? The difficulty is always the sorting out of truth from falsehood.

So what is the agency that empowers one to discern when one is reading truth, and when one is reading nonsense or deception? If, as you say, "God has written his law on our hearts," does that mean that the human heart is guaranteed infallibility? For if it did, then surely no one would ever believe in error, right?

We need some further explanation here.