Hello Mark, I will try one more response to this post and hopefully with kindly and intelligable words. I do appreciate your directness. I am not a sociologist and look at religion as a practicioner but think of it as an organic entity to be experienced, not a sociological schema although I am not adverse to the mental excercise. While I do agree that the statement "All religions are one" needs reflection and perhaps explanation, I do not agree that it is something "which any reasonable person can (and should) refute" or that it is "ludicrous". I also believe that God's Will has not changed over time but remains the same as it ever was and that it cannot be refuted or expained or understood but only followed like the proverbial apple that hit Newton.
One might use the concept of a tree and it's fruit, since we are told to "judge a tree by it's fruit". There are many different types of "apples", e.g. "MacIntosh", "Red Delicious", "Granny Smith", etc. Apples have different colors, sizes, weight but I can still tell that it is an apple by it's flavor and texture and some indescribable "appleness". That is the oneness of apples. There is also a oneness of religion. I cannot put it into a syllogism but I can still experience it's onenes - the coat of Joseph that can make the blind to see. Praise be the Almighty souce of all. "He was alone, there was no one else." The One produced all. Perhaps we look at each Manifestation as a Fruit on the one Lote tree in the Divine summer. Anyway I look at it, "all religions are one" is not ludicrous and is not refutable although it may be misunderstood and even laughed at. Warmest bahai love, john On 12/10/03 7:37 AM, "Mark A. Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just posted the following on the interfaith "Study Circle" list: > > I think that the unqualified statement, "All religions are one," is ludicrous > on the face of it. However, if the statement can be broken down, it might be > more manageable: > > 1. What is included by "all"? > 2. What is our present definition of "religion"? > 3. What, if anything, is the significance of "are" (as contrasted with *were* > or *will be*)? > 4. What is intended by "one" or oneness. > > Let me then suggest a qualified statement (though not a testable proposition): > > The Mind of God willed certain Prophets or Messengers to found religions. The > religious teachings of those Prophets or Messengers are one in that, > irrespective of their apparent differences, they all reflect God's > intentionality or Will at a particular moment in history. > > Unless one specifies what one means by, "All religions are one," one is left > with a sentence which any reasonable person can (and should) refute. > > Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net > http://CompuServe.m.foster.name ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
