Eric H

Hello victorialis,


Quote victorialis:
Wouldn't a world religion require a single truth so basic and obvious that it would be of little use or satisfaction?
=======================


First of all we can’t even prove that God exists, so it is highly unlikely that we can even agree on a single truth like, God is Christian, Islamic, Hindu, or Sikh. In fact just trying to put a name to God causes division.

It is highly unlikely that the governing bodies of the various religions will agree with each other on doctrine.

But just supposing 2 Christian denominations could agree on a range of doctrine and unite. This would mean that people miles away from were I live have agreed with each other on how I should relate to Christians of another denomination in my town, and that doesn’t feel right.





------------------------------------
Quote victorialis:
There is so much variety in human beings, such a broad spectrum of needs and desires.
====================



Yet this is where we have the greatest possibility of coming together.


Most belief systems whether they believe in a God or not, have a golden rule which their faith hangs on. The Golden rule governs how we should treat others, even if they are not of our own faith. Just using Christianity as an example, if Christians in a town had an objective for a union:

How can we love God above all else?
How can we love people of other faiths as we love ourselves?
How can we love our neighbours as we love ourselves?

Trying to live by the greatest commandments means that we actually have to do things, we have to make an effort, we have to feel that we want to be a community together.

And this feels like the right way to go, I belong to Churches Together, and a few people from each of the churches in our town are trying to build a greater community. This can bring people of all faiths closer together.


Peace

Eric

victorialis

quote from Eric: "But just supposing 2 Christian denominations could agree on a range of doctrine and unite. This would mean that people miles away from where I live have agreed with each other on how I should relate to Christians of another denomination in my town, and that doesn’t feel right."

I think I see what you mean, but I wonder why you're involved with an ecumenical organization if you feel this way. Why doesn't it feel right?

Is it because you'd be having something imposed upon you from outside? Because you don't have an immediate, personal relationship with those people miles away, in the way that you do with your own pastor/elders/deacons/whatever? I guess those would be my issues.

I'm not sure what our 2 hypothetical Christian denominations would actually be getting by making such an agreement. Isn't that more a matter of form than of substance? What's stopping individual members of either denomination from fellowshipping together? If they have mutual interests or a common objective (some local project or outreach), why not work together within that limited framework, gain an appreciation of one another, and let the rest be?

Why isn't that enough? Is mutual respect so difficult in Christian love?

My money says most of the flock would have no problem at all with limited and specific interfaith activity -- if the leaders are secure enough in themselves to refrain from raising doctrinal issues, and wise enough to reassure their people on that score.

Good luck with Churches Together. You ask good questions. Keep on.