Which supernatural religion is verity?
-- All, Some, One, or None -- ...
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 111002)

If one accepts that the supernatural is, after
all, an area of unknowns, and is a reflection
of many irreconcilable notions via the mode
of worship / solicitation for money / solicita-
tions to believe religious claims, then the
following considerations come into play re-
garding the question ...

Which supernatural religion is verity?

-- All, Some, One, or None --

1) All is illogical due to irreconcilable contra-
dictions amongst supernatural religions. All
requires maximum spin to try to justify the
milieu of contradictions present in the super-
natural religions.

2) Some would at best convey some truth
and some illogic, as well as requiring (logic-
ally) one to smooth over (spin) the differences
in the selected supernatural religions, as well
as requiring (logically) one to reconcile why
some supernatural religions were chosen and
others were rejected.

3) One about tops out the possibilities, logic-
ally speaking, but which one, and why that one
and not the others? After all, since supernatural
religions apply to that which is presumed to exist
in the area of unknowns, what would make any
supernatural religion rank above others?

4) None is the only logically consistent choice
as it rejects all supernatural religions, eliminat-
ing the illogic required to smooth over the differ-
ences between acceptance of favored super-
natural religions and rejection of unfavored
ones.

None accepts that supernaturalism is "make be-
lieve", a reflection of human insecurity and emo-
tional desires,

-and/or-

accepts that it's unjustified to pick and choose
amongst any supernatural claims based on mere
faith, for anyone can claim anything regarding the
unknown, and claims do not a verity make.

---

From a recent book, conveying the ideal of
ecumenism (movement promoting worldwide
unity among religions through greater cooper-
ation and improved understanding) ... "God
has spoken to mankind in many languages,
through Judaism to the Jews, Christianity to
Christians, Islam to Muslims ... no one creed
has a monopoly of spiritual truth. In heaven
there is truth, on earth there are truths.God
is greater than religion. He is only partially
comprehended by any faith."

In defending the book against devotees of a
particular interpretation of religious faith that
took offense to the ecumenism, the writer said
"the book was intended for a gentile rather than
Jewish readership." The writer also said "Any
implication that Judaism does not contain abso-
lute truth represents a grave deviation from the
pathways of traditional and authentic Judaism."

Ecumenism has been a success, in large part,
due to the human rebellion against the divisive-
ness and religious wars which have been caused
by religious groups treating their particular inter-
pretation of a God (or Gods) as the one and only
truth, worthy of war / torture / jihad / genocide /
martyrdom.

However, to make ecumenism work, a different
truth is most often taught behind the closed
doors of churches / mosques / synagogues /
temples than is presented to external entities,
for public consumption.

So, for ecumenism to succeed, while at the
same time promoting the unique ideals of a
particular religious faith, a duality -and- disingen-
uousness is often the tool utilized, one face for
public consumption, and an alternate ofttimes
contradictory one for followers (true believers
in a particular interpretation of religious faith).

The non-ecumenical devotees (i.e., those un-
willing to present a public face different from
their private teachings) usually consist of those
trying to get their particular interpretation of
faith acknowledged as the "Truth(tm)", the ideal,
the best religion around, bar none. Generally,
that non-ecumenical approach is used by funda-
mentalists and religious extremists.

What does it say about religious faith, the fact
that ecumenism is required to prevent religious
wars? Does that speak to the worthiness of reli-
gious faith, or does it, instead, clearly demon-
strate its unworthiness, its temptation (when
taken literally and seriously) towards divisive-
ness and anti-humanism?

Reference: The Dignity of Difference
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,814271,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other posts on ecumenical issues:

- - -

Praying for a Miracle, a Baptist Miracle ...
http://prohuman.net/2001/11/27.htm

Excerpt: "... When it comes to ecumenism, it's all
a play for acceptance, with the real notions of the
claimed supremacy of a particular faith promoted
behind the closed doors of churches / mosques /
synagogues / temples and other so-called "holy"
places."

- - -

"Official" Moment of Silence in Secular Schools
http://prohuman.net/social_legal/moment_of_silence.htm

Excerpt:

... Student Responds: ... Do you think that the state is
acting in the students' best interests or, really, when it
comes right down to it, the state acts to inhibit criticism
of religion in public schools by virtue of its stances of
"In God We Trust" on money and coinage, "One Nation
Under God" in the pledge of allegiance, and recent
efforts to vote for "God Bless America" by over 400
to zero in the House of Representatives?

Teacher: My, you are well-informed. Let me put it this
way, the courts have ruled God is a deistic synonym for
whatever force or entity is responsible for all that is.
Many folks see God as a particular God of religion,
many folks see God as nature, many folks see God
as merely a substitute for unknowns.

God is, per generalistic ecumenical philosophy, a repre-
sentative of all that is good and genuine and true. How-
ever, that being the case, in order to avoid religious wars
and invocation of a particular God mindset as law, the
separation of church and state has allowed the U.S. to
continue along a heavily religious-steeped mindset while
not falling prey to what were formerly long-lived prob-
lems of combining church and state.

Student responds: So, you're saying that God is what-
ever folks want it to be but in order to avoid the risk of
a particular interpretation or set of interpretations becom-
ing the law of the land, a distance from God specificity
has been endemic to American culture ...

while at the same time a general God word has been used
to convey an ecumenical commonality of subservience to
whatever God is, and even though most perceive God as
an almighty sky daddy who rewards good believers with
immortal life and damns bad disbelievers to immortal tor-
ment, government and folks, in general, feel comfortable
with ideas like "God Bless America", "In God We Trust",
"One Nation Under God", and so on and so forth.

Is that what you're saying?

Teacher: The comfort with God is normally not perceived
in the manner you described it. In all honesty, most folks,
when God is used, think their interpretation of God is the
true one, and they only pay lip service to other interpreta-
tions in order to avoid, well, you know, violent confronta-
tions and threats and all that goes along with taking a par-
ticular interpretation to be the one and only truth. ...

- - -

The God of All - The God for
Everyone - The Ecumenical God
http://prohuman.net/disbelief/god_for_everyone_ecumenical.htm
"Ever heard the phrase "We all worship the *same*
God"? How is that done? Via public presentation
of traditional faith followers as ecumenically one
with the creator of all, the "good loving God" (in
public discourse) while maintaining cultlike require-
ments to believe (in the "right" way in the "right"
God(s), or else) when engaging in ritualistic wor-
ship and ceremonies. ..."

- - -