Is the key to agree to disagree?

[bobtherobert]

I have lived my entire life outside of religion, putting more faith in science than in writings from hundreds or thousands of years ago, with who knows how many errors or misprints in them... almost every war, every massive act of violence has been on behalf of one gods "teaching" and how they are different than someone else's... Most religions do seem to have the same basic ethos---work hard, love your family, love yourself, and try to treat everyone as you would like to be treated... that's how I try to live my life.
How can the bible, which I thought was supposed to be perfect, have at least 6 completely different religions based off of it?

 

[DailyBlessings]

"Agreeing to disagree" is usually a bad idea in the long term. You end up with groups of people who still disagree but aren't allowed to discuss the underlying problems without social reprecussion, and these kinds of festering resentments eventually come to the surface again. A better solution would be to learn to listen to one another.

 

[Apollonian]

First of all, as a side note, I think that the history of human warfare is much broader than religious conflict. Especially the (relatively recent) world wars were fought upon Nationalistic rather than religious overtones. More often, wars are fought because of natural resources or cultural influences (of which religion is an example). This is not to say that there were not indeed some wars fought solely on the basis of religion (such a horribly twisted basis!)

"agreeing to disagree" is a methodology used when two people or groups have reached an irreconcileable impass in their relationship. Rather than pressing that impass to the point of conflict (or war), the two agree upon a limited common ground whereby they may tolerate each other.

In general, this is an often necessary but highly degenerative goal used as a last resort. The true goal of philosophy (and most religions) is to understand each other and the universe. More often than not, it is misunderstanding and impatience which leads to disagreement, not some fundamental metaphysical disconnect.

Especially where different languages and cultures are concerned, communication is a precarious process of understanding the meaning behind another person's words. Often times we project our own cultural and religious biases on other people's expression, thus misinterpreting their meaning.

If we are to "agree" on the Truth, we first must understand each other. If we "agree to disagree" then we never have the chance to figure out if we actually do agree and simply don't understand what the other is saying.

Instead of "agreeing to disagree" try "agreeing that we cannot know". This latter tactic leaves much more room for tolerance and growth in a relationship.

 

[elman]

I have lived my entire life outside of religion, putting more faith in science than in writings from hundreds or thousands of years ago, with who knows how many errors or misprints in them... almost every war, every massive act of violence has been on behalf of one gods "teaching" and how they are different than someone else's... Most religions do seem to have the same basic ethos---work hard, love your family, love yourself, and try to treat everyone as you would like to be treated... that's how I try to live my life.
How can the bible, which I thought was supposed to be perfect, have at least 6 completely different religions based off of it?

I don't think the Bible is perfect, but even if it were, it would not be responsible for some people interpreting it for their own purposes to say the opposite of what it sometimes says. It is actually a sign that people ae thinking for themselves when there are so many different groups who do not agree on what the scriptures teach.

 

[hairettic]

Agreeing to disagree has left me very frustrated and unhappy. SO no I don't think that is the answer. Learning to listen...might help some.

Being humble enough to know we don't really have it all figured out ourselves, and that we are all just going on doing the best we can, with our own knowledge...might lead to a better understanding of others. Extend the grace you would like to receive.
be blessed.
Is there really only 6 religions based on the bible....I was sure there would be more!

 

[ConservativeAtheist]

To put it simply, the bible isn't perfect. Not even close in a matter of fact.

The New Testament has a good message and is also an entertaining read. Stay away from the Old Testament though unless you want to see two completely contradictory Gods. One who believes in peace, the other in pain.

 

[hairettic]

Interesting analogy. I always thought the OT showed how we could never fulfull the law. Never be good enough, even if we tried. And the NT tells us we need not worry about it anymore? Just my personal opinion.

 

[holysee]

Which religion was Attila the Hun waging war on behalf of?

 

[The Nihilist]

Interesting analogy. I always thought the OT showed how we could never fulfull the law. Never be good enough, even if we tried. And the NT tells us we need not worry about it anymore? Just my personal opinion.

Actually, it was Paul who argued that the law could never be fulfilled. This sort of claptrap does not appear in the OT.

 

[Blackguard_]

Which religion was Attila the Hun waging war on behalf of?

I don't know what the Huns beleived, but the Mongols did beleive god ordained them to rule the world. Not that I agree witht the OP, most wars are economic or political..

 

[holysee]

So Ghengis Khan was devoutly religious? Hmm, strangely unconvincing

 

[Blackguard_]

So Ghengis Khan was devoutly religious? Hmm, strangely unconvincing

Since when does being religious necessarily mean being peaceful?

 

[holysee]

Since when does being religious necessarily mean being peaceful?

The proposition that most wars are caused by devotedly religious people is suspect. Neither Attila the Hun nor Genghis Khan were renowned for their deep religious faith. In a world where everyone possessed a religion of some sort, if one was being facile, you could attribute every action that they made to the religion that they professed but that would be a psychologically unconvincing argument. Ostensibly Catholic heads of state for example used to make war against the Papal States. Was Catholicism a motive in going to war against the Pope? Similarly the Papal State in the 17th Century supported the Protestant Prince William of Orange against the Catholic Stewart dynasty in the United Kingdom. Was the Pope motivated by anti-Catholicism?

 

[pwf]

hi, i'm the crusades.

 

[Blackguard_]

hi, i'm the crusades.

hi, i'm the albigensian crusade. even people at the time thought i was was an excuse to grab land.

 

[Blackguard_]

The proposition that most wars are caused by devotedly religious people is suspect.

agreed

Neither Attila the Hun nor Genghis Khan were renowned for their deep religious faith. In a world where everyone possessed a religion of some sort, if one was being facile, you could attribute every action that they made to the religion that they professed but that would be a psychologically unconvincing argument. Ostensibly Catholic heads of state for example used to make war against the Papal States. Was Catholicism a motive in going to war against the Pope? Similarly the Papal State in the 17th Century supported the Protestant Prince William of Orange against the Catholic Stewart dynasty in the United Kingdom. Was the Pope motivated by anti-Catholicism?

Yes, not all action is motivated by religion. That doesn't mean none are. The mongol leaders may not have been very pious in all respects, but that does not change that they believed it was literally their god given right to rule the world and acted accordingly.

 

[bobtherobert]

Ok, so "historically" wars have been mainly waged because of a difference of opinion, which more often than any other one reason was religion.
But the main point of my question, which I suppose I didn't get across was if I don't follow any religion, and God does happen to exist, will I not get into heaven for having doubt?
Or, suppose I do decide to follow a religion, and it happens to be the wrong one, am I doomed to hell?

 

[bobtherobert]

And when I say "agreeing to disagree" I just mean in essence every religion is the same, morals and consequences, so why is there animosity between some different religions?

 

[ReluctantProphet]

I have lived my entire life outside of religion, putting more faith in science than in writings from hundreds or thousands of years ago, with who knows how many errors or misprints in them... almost every war, every massive act of violence has been on behalf of one gods "teaching" and how they are different than someone else's... Most religions do seem to have the same basic ethos---work hard, love your family, love yourself, and try to treat everyone as you would like to be treated... that's how I try to live my life.
How can the bible, which I thought was supposed to be perfect, have at least 6 completely different religions based off of it?

War is generated and supported by politics, not by religion. Religion gets dragged into it. How many wars has America been in that were about religion? You have been lead with Science promoters (not actual scientists) to believe that religion = war. Those leading you are the war makers.

The "agree to disagree" is another effort to create conflict, not resolve it. The idea was to create social energy to be taxed for wealth of the government. The energy created by divorces, people having to replace destroyed items, having to relocate, find new jobs, pay lawyers, and so on cause an extreme economical advantage to use politically.

The original issue was that true peace has no energy to it and thus cannot defend itself against aggression. The better solution was to "agree in compliment", meaning that for everything one person wants to do, agree that another will undo it in another location. This would provide harmony through agreement and also the energy that society needs to fend off enemies.

The "agreement to disagree" creates direct conflict, disharmony, and chaos bringing misery beyond measure.

Society reverted to this ancient strategy of Moses because the Christian churches didn't realize how to bring energy through agreement. The religions didn't solve the problem, so the politicians took over.

The religions are about how to solve problems, they are not about believing in mysterious beings that dictate things. The "gods" were the principles involved concerning different issues. The worship of those gods was really about the reverence to the principles. Only the ignorant masses thought of them as invisible creatures with human like qualities. In modern times the "god" of physical attraction would be the electric charge who begat the sons of magnetism and gravity. It is just an issue of language. The real problems are no different now than they have ever been.

Jesus proposed a solution to the social problems of man. Before Jesus’ solution, the problems of man, his conflicts with nature and himself dictated his actions. Those problems were together, his “God” because they controlled what he could or could not do. Once Jesus presented the solution, then the solution dictates what man does as long as man believes that solution. The same holds true concerning anything, in that the problem dictates until a solution is accepted, then the solution dictates.

The solution is NOT to agree to disagree. That is actually just supporting the problem so that a governing of it all can get filthy rich. The better solution to make them even more wealthy and everyone more healthy and happier is for them to agree in compliment.