Religious Unity . . . Is it Possible?

United States
December 26, 2008 8:30pm CST
In 1991 Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote as follows: "No religion is an island. We are all involved with one another. Spiritual betrayl on the part of one of us affects the faith of all of us. Views adopted by one community have an impact on other communities. Today religious isolationism is a myth. For all the profound differences in perspective and substance, Judaism is sooner or later affected by the intellectual, moral and spiritual events within the Christian society, and vice versa. "We fail to realize that while different exponents of faith in the world of religion continue to be wary of the ecumenical movement, there is another ecumenical movement: nihilism. We must choose between interfaith and inter-nihilism. Cynicism is not parochial. Should religions insist on complete isolation? Should we refuse to be on speaking terms with one another and hope for each other's failure? Or should we pray for each other's health, and help one another in preserving one's respective legacy, in preserving a common legacy?" Please discuss. How do you respond to Heschel's observation? Is religious diversity a position development or not? Is it the responsibility of religious communities to encourage and support one another? Should they learn to understand their common ground, or should they treat such efforts as a potential dilution of their essential reason to exist? Ultimately, is ecumenism a viable path to the defeat of religious-based terrorism?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@Frederick42 (2024)
• Canada
27 Dec 08
I do not think religious unity is possible. I feel religion itself should go. Then only there will be peace and prosperrity.
• United States
27 Dec 08
So are you suggesting that the values of religion are worth preserving, but not the institutions themselves?
@GADHISUNU (2162)
• India
28 Dec 08
I like this subject because it is also my concern, at least, if not unity at the first instance, inter-religious strife must come down. Centuries of conditioning that their religion alone is right and the embedding of rewards for the propagation of the faith of your birth into the canons of religion are the first villains of any inter-religious harmony. If there has to be inter-religious harmony, which is necessary too in these days of extreme economical and social interdependence , the first set of statements that need be expunged from the religious books are Statements of superiority of one faith over the other statements calling people from other faiths to have been doomed compulsion to spread the faith - removal of the concept of conversions. The use of religion to whip up political support, is another cause for inter-religious strife. In the Old World there wasn't enough economic activity beyond may be production of food, a few implements and may be housing to name a few and religion served as a good rallying point for the masses. For one thing the modern thinking on political unity has relegated religion to a very secondary place in most civilized societies. But there are no dearth of people trying out minority- ism in its place, whipping up religious frenzy. There are states which have decided to declare religion as the basis of their political identity- the separation of religion from state, which is a giant leap in the direction of civilized living- is not yet a Universal phenomenon. Almost all the Islamic countries are religious entities first and political entities later. That is at least one-third of the nations of the world? Take the two countries India and Pakistan for instance. India took to the path of so called secular-democracy, whereas Pakistan is an Islamic State, and an almost ineffective democracy. With the kind of numbers in world population most Muslim countries could downplay religion and work towards imbibing the scientific outlook instead. But they have perhaps felt it is easier to tie people together with irrationality, than principles of Science. One must admit, irrespective of the religion, the concepts in the religious books are more based on faith and tacit assumptions than through a path of traceable, expressible inquiry. Buddhism is perhaps the only religion, which places the least emphasis on "faith" and doesn't deify its founder. This is in principle once again.The plebian version of that religion once has all the trappings of what can be validly called religion. For religious unity to be possible, religious experience must be clearly defined and followed by at least the people who matter to carry forward the faith to have the experience of God, in order to, really feel the unity behind all that diversity of religious experience.
• Canada
28 Dec 08
Well hi! Thanks for this question. Well, I believe that we all have the right to choose what we believe and not be dictated into what to believe. At the same time I will say that there is only one truth and that truth is God in Father, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit). There is only one God, as I believe, only one truth. It has proven true to me. This "religion". But I don't intend to push this on anyone, but to encourage all to consider it at least. Look into it. Now having said this, there will always be different views on what is true. This is how we are made. We are made not to think the same way. We are made to think for ourselves. Now having said this, I will point out the fact that we will someday have a one world religion where we will be made to worship the same way globally. I believe this. Yes, he's called the anti-christ. The bible has ALOT of predictions come true, so this is only one reason I put my faith in the Book. The Bible predicts of being a one world religion. The world will be forced to worship the world leader. Well, these are my thoughts, hope you enjoyed reading this. Peace out!