ONE?, On Comparative Religions
Gregg Zegarelli Esq.
Managing Shareholder at Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC
? Reprint, 2007.
Following is an excerpt from the ONE? Blog , reprinted here not necessarily as truth, but as perhaps a reflective tool in light of recent social events regarding religious conflict.
ONE? Reader Question to?Gregg Zegarelli , Author of ONE ? to Comment on Comparative Religions:
What is your belief regarding other religions? ?
Response:
First, I will say that my personal belief was not necessarily part of the mechanical task of unifying the ONE text.? However, as the author of ONE, it is reasonable to conclude that I have contemplated deeply such things as the nature of religion, so I will address the question briefly.? (I do really mean briefly, since I certainly do not intend this to be detailed work of philosophy or religious analysis; although it may be that we make simple truths more complex than necessary.)
Having said that, I will break down the parts of religions that are generally common among them (such as I can see them), so that we can think about them a bit more clearly.? I believe the breakdown is rather logical and straight-forward, although we may often fail to analyze such things with proper attention.
1. "Abstract Issues," such as the nature of the soul. ?Such "supernatural" issues cannot be evidenced with empirical data.? (I will leave that issue somewhat as it is, in that I will not debate the really existential point such as, "Can the cup you hold ultimately be proved by empirical evidence...ultimately?"? That is too existential for the purpose here, and I will hold with the basic point that debating who is correct as to the nature of the soul is quite a distinct type of question from determining who is correct in an argument over whether a living human being can bleed.)
2.? "Concrete Issues," such as the rules for interacting socially in the natural "earthy" world.? That is, rules regarding living within a human social existence.?
3.? "Mixed Issues," such as ritual.? That is, ritual actually taking place in the "earthly" natural world for the purpose of accomplishing the satisfaction of the supernatural abstract beliefs in No. 1, above.? For example, the slaughter of a sheep as a sacrifice to god.? This is something in the "earthly world" that is believed to have significance for the "spiritual world" and/or afterlife, but is not per se a requirement of core human social interaction.? The ritual itself may have an impact on social interaction (such as a group dancing around a fire), but it is not an ultimate goal per se.? Fasting, sacrifice, and prayer are within this category.? The ultimate goal is that something be performed in this life that is believed to have an impact impact the supernatural or after-life.
Thus, to me, it appears that religions generally consist of a combination of: 1. abstract beliefs; 2. concrete rules of social interaction/activity; and 3. mixed rules of activity for the purpose of fulfilling the abstract belief.? With that as a foundation, I will think about them with you.?
________________________________
First, Concrete Issues, the easiest analytical category.? It would seem for the atheist, that only No. 2 is applicable: Concrete Issues.? This would necessarily be true since, without the supernatural, divinity or "god" as part of the formula, life is defined by the empirical scope of earthly activity.? An atheist may or may not contradict the rules established by various religions in their respective concrete rules.?
On a secular basis, an atheist may be a personally or socially "good" person or a "bad" person, as anyone might be.?
Let us stay true to the category, though, and not bleed the point into the "mixed" issues category.? For example, if an atheist or Confucianist, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim all act with love toward their neighbor in this life (although they have differences as to the after-life/Abstract Issues), there is absolutely no difference between or among them within the scope as to this discrete category.? Based upon action in this earthly world alone, without the ascribing of religious dogma or beliefs, there is, in this and similar examples, no basis for an atheist or Confucianist, Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim to conduct war for causes under this category.? This is true, by definition, and anyone who debates this point confuses or bleeds categories.?
That is, within the discrete scope of secular social interaction, there is no Concrete Issues basis to smack a person who kisses you because they do not share a belief as to the Abstract Issues.
Second, as to Abstract Issues, assuming that Abstract Issues do not touch upon Concrete Issues (and, therefore, by definition, are not part of Mixed Issues), the rules of any religion appear to be academic.?
If you say the soul is black and I say the soul is white, being an Abstract Issue, neither of us have any earthly evidentiary conclusive proof for our choice of beliefs, and neither of us have any conclusive evidence to refute the other.? If you say the afterlife is white light, and I say the afterlife is a new perfect physical world, even assuming our human minds can contemplate the nature of the supernatural, god or the afterlife, not having any frame of reference or shared reference, neither of us can prove our point.? To debate such issues may or may not be rational to some extent, but it is inherently futile.?
If someone should argue, "My abstract ideas are better than your abstract ideas, because my book of words says so," it begs the question.?
Now, let me state it a bit differently, so it is clear where it appears that a superficial analysis goes wrong: Words that embody Abstract Issues cannot thereby convert those Abstract Issues into Concrete Issues.?
The first time I had a discussion with a friend stating this point, my friend responded, "But my beliefs are true because the Bible says so; I have proof right here in this Bible in the words of our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Savior."? So I will say it again:
Words (oral or written) cannot convert Abstract Issues into Concrete Issues.?
Adam and Eve never had a book. Only what is, is.
If someone believes that Jesus's written statements of the Abstract Issues are true, that is what the person believes.? If someone believes that the written professions of the Buddha, Moses, or Muhammad, as to Abstract Issues are true, that is what the person believes.? However, there is no reason for a Christian, for example, to fight with a Jew or Muslim over the statements of Abstract Issues because there is no uncontradicted earthly proof for the earthly debate.?
Accordingly, the earthly debate is ultimately futile.? And, therefore, the debate over the relative merits of Abstract Issues is, by definition, academic.
Third, as to Mixed Issues, the analysis is somewhat derivative, since Mixed Issues are a combination of Abstract Issues and Concrete Issues; that is, earthly acts for some divine purpose, divine favor, or for "supernatural," or "afterlife" qualification.
领英推荐
Irrespective of "why" a religion inspires or requires a worldly action, all or most religions have a rule-set for living in the real world.? For example, harmonious and peaceful co-existence with other living things, such as it can be done within the context of the cycle of life and environment.?
If we remove "why" someone acts righteously, it reverts to the analysis contained for Concrete Issues, since a Christian may love or "do unto others" because Jesus says so, and an atheist may do it because it is proper for controlled social interaction .
For example, take the Ten Commandments (aka, the "Decalogue "): Honor your father and mother, do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie, do not covet; all of which are precise commands on social activity in the secular world in which we exist.? These rules are naturally and self-evidently positive in our social environment for order and controlled social interaction, with or without the spiritual or divine implications.
The Ten Commandments set forth a rule-set as follows:
An atheist and member of most religions can equally follow the social rules in six of the Ten Commandments, Concrete Issues.? The first four of the Ten Commandments are Mixed Issues because they are believed to be directives of what to do on earth for a supernatural purpose or as a command from the divine with supernatural and/or after-life implications.??
As to Mixed Issues, I will sub-divide into:
a) Mixed Issues actions purely for sake of the spirit and with no material social function; and
b) Mixed Issues actions that have a dual purpose, that is both a spiritual and social function.?
For example, the slaughtering of a sheep for no purpose other than as a sacrifice would be the first category, as is the act of praying (a physical personal act with no necessary social function), genuflecting, etc. The second category, for example, the handshaking "sign of peace" in a church ceremony, group dancing around a fire or chanting, that requires an interactive social symbol of peace in a spiritual context, or the first four of the Ten Commandments.
Now, as to the first sub-category of Mixed Issues with no material primary social function, such as praying (or doing so facing a certain direction), I have no basis to judge, because the activity is purely a personal act, with purely personal implications, based purely upon the person's belief as to Abstract Issues.? If a person's religion requires prayer during the day, or facing a certain direction, so be it.? Generally speaking, it is a personal act without social impact.? How am I to judge my brother or sister's peaceful activities?
As to the second sub-category of Mixed Issues with a social effect, I will merely analyze it within the category for Concrete Issues, without regard to the purpose or "why" that act occurs for comparative religious analysis.? If a religion requires that a person kiss me or slap me, I can assess that act as a Concrete Issue, so I defer back to the discussion on that category.
Therefore, my analysis of persons and comparative religions reduces to what people actually do, or the "fruits of their labor" as Jesus taught.? You come to know a people by their respective actions.?ONE : 631 [T7:16].? Love is impotent in the abstract.?
Jesus of Nazareth was a spiritual rebel who condemned religious hypocritical formalisms, irrespective of the human reversionary tendencies that time adduces. Although it might superficially seem to be ironic, I believe that I am commanded to forget the institutional religious belief of others.? All conversion is to love, not to institutional religion.?
Shall we forget that, in Jesus's Parable of the Good Samaritan, the first person to pass the injured man was a rabbi/priest??ONE : 1038 [L10:25].? His point, of course, was not any disregard for those many good persons who are devoted to god as their sole life's purpose, but a reproach for hypocritical action.? The point is further made by Jesus in his Parable of the Two Sons: one son said he would do his father's will, yet did not; the other son said he would not do his father's will, yet did.? ONE : 2061 [T21:28].? Deeds ultimately control.?
As Henry Ford said, "The older I get, the more I watch what people do, and the less I listen to what they say."? I think this is a wise statement.?
I do not filter my love for others, nor others' love for me, by judging the source by academic Abstract Issues.? That yoke is too hard to carry, and that camel too large to swallow.?
Thank you for your question.
_________________________
“It does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are 20 gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ― Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson
*?Gregg Zegarelli , Esq., earned both his Bachelor of Arts Degree and his Juris Doctorate from Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His dual major areas of study were History from the College of Liberal Arts and Accounting from the Business School (qualified to sit for the CPA examination), with dual minors in Philosophy and Political Science. He has enjoyed Adjunct Professorships in the Duquesne University Graduate Leadership Master Degree Program (The Leader as Entrepreneur; Developing Leadership Character Through Adversity) and the University of Pittsburgh Law School (The Anatomy of a Deal). He is admitted to various courts throughout the United States of America.
Gregg Zegarelli , Esq.,?is Managing Shareholder of?Technology & Entrepreneurial Ventures Law Group, PC .?Gregg is nationally rated as "superb" and has more than 35 years of experience working with entrepreneurs and companies of all sizes, including startups,?INC. 500, and publicly traded companies.?He is author of?One: The Unified Gospel of Jesus ,?and?The Business of Aesop ? article series, and co-author with his father,?Arnold Zegarelli , of?The Essential Aesop: For Business, Managers, Writers and Professional Speakers .?Gregg is a frequent lecturer, speaker and faculty for a variety of educational and other institutions.?
? 2007 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. ?Gregg can be contacted through?LinkedIn .
______________________________
#GreggZegarelli #ONE #ONE_UnifiedGospel #UnifiedGospel #MyOneBible #Allah #Buddha #Dekalogue #Decalogue #Confucius #ComparativeReligion #Gandhi #Jesus #Mohammed #Moses #Yahweh #Wisdom #Tatian #Diatessaron #ThomasJefferson #NotesOnStateVirginia #Jefferson #Zegarelli #GRZ_163