Can There Ever be a Religious Standard?

Standards are useful, and around us constantly. List of International Common Standards

From the computer you're typing on, the plug in the wall, the language you're typing in, the shoes you're wearing and countless other examples, standards are absolutely everywhere.

Some standards are "Open", others have varying levels of privatisation and complexity, some are international (more and more are these days), and some are localised to region or country (but again, standards are generally heading in a global direction). They are in place to smooth interactions and often save lives through consistent knowledge and levels of quality.

There is often controversy around standards, but generally they are necessary for progress, and when you consider your daily lives, it makes sense to have standards to work from (no-one likes adapters!).

When thinking about religion, in a sense, the doctrine of a religion is the "standard" of that religion's theology. However, every industry or school of thought that I have looked at out there is developing or has standards for communication and interaction.... except religion.

I can't find any "standards" associated with religion.

While we define the standards around us, it can easily be seen that standards conversely define us as a society by providing a framework to exist within.

Since there are no standards for religion, religion is not a part of the system which is currently defining much of our lives and interactions. It seems that religion needs some standards to remain relevant.

Based on all of this…

Is it possible for all religions to agree on a theological standard?

reply to post by puzzlesphere

There are religious "standards", but they are associated with different religions.
Relating to the Christian religion, for example, you will find the Nicene Creed and the "Definition" which was agreed at the Council of Chalcedon.
But there will never be any such thing as a "standard" for religion in general, because the different religions are necessarily in disagreement with each other.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Well, there are different denominations of christianity also, some that would defy the norms, yet under the umbrella of religious acceptance, would no less be taken as valid...

as with every religion, there are off shoots that take things literally, or ignore things as archaic.

I don't believe there is any standard that can be applied as it is all interpretation. nothing more. he said, he said, they said, god said.

there may be a sort of standard.. like no bikinis in church. or no drinking a bottle of sherry at confession.

but an obligation to adhere to a common standard, in a religious context, can only fail as human interference. to know the mind of god, etc, etc, what blasphemy. he likes you cutting parts off babies. circumcise those doodles. destroy that clitoris. sew in that chicken skin, we will have virgins only around here!!

you have rituals and pretty much a desire to be right... the only standards to base religion on.

reply to post by winofiend

So you are essentially agreeing with the point I was making, that a "standard" for religions in general is never going to happen.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Yes, I agree that each religion has it's own "standard", which I mentioned in the OP as their doctrine. The Nicene Creed is used by most of Christianity, but not all, and it's barely used in Eastern countries. Though I do agree that it is the closest thing to an international standard in religion.

DISRAELI
But there will never be any such thing as a "standard" for religion in general, because the different religions are necessarily in disagreement with each other.

Why is it necessary for religions to be in disagreement? Rather than having them argue over the fact that they are the "only" correct theology, which is almost a given, isn't t possible to look at all religions, and pull out the commonalities to define a set of standards around theology?

It seems at some point in the future religion will have to, to remain relevant.

Also, it seems if everyone had something they could agree on theologically, there may not be so many arguements.

DISRAELI
reply to post by winofiend

 

So you are essentially agreeing with the point I was making, that a "standard" for religions in general is never going to happen.

Yep!

What am I a contrarian??

I do sometimes agree with people Oo

*shh dont let that get around, it will just make things awkward*

puzzlesphere
Why is it necessary for religions to be in disagreement? Rather than having them argue over the fact that they are the "only" correct theology, which is almost a given, isn't t possible to look at all religions, and pull out the commonalities to define a set of standards around theology?

If one religion says that Florida is on the Atlantic coast, and another one says that Florida is on the Pacific coast, then it's glaringly obvious that at least one of them must be wrong.

The fashionable claim that both religions are "equally valid" is patent nonsense.
The fashionable idea that both religions are "true for those who believe in them" is patent nonsense.
At least one of those religions is providing an inaccurate and misleading map, which will cause nothing but confusion for the people trying to follow it, and all the sincerity in the world won't get them back home to Florida if they're trying to find it on the wrong coast.

There is a way to bring both religions to agreement, and that is to draw a new map of America showing a vast ocean just south of the Rio Grande, bringing the continent to an apex, so that Florida can be on both coasts at the same time.
Yippee! We have found the common ground betweent the two religions and removed all causes of disagreement. To celebrate this fact, the adherents from both coasts pile into motor-boats and enthusiastically head for the rendezvous point half-way between them. With the result that everybody on both sides crashes head-first into the coast of Mexico.

Religon is a map.
No religion has any value except to the extent that it coincides with reality.
If two different religions are saying things which are incompatible with each other, they cannot both be right, and mixing up truth and falsehood for the sake of obtaining "agreement" on a single statement is a complete waste of time.

Religion is proprietary.

Just like the products you buy in the store. You don't send you Dell computer to HP to be repaired or replaced. You send it to the original manufacturer.

If you're a Christian. You can't go to Buddha for forgiveness of sins. It will void your warranty. And you'll have yet another sin to be forgiven of, once you get your warranty straightened out.

Standardization in religion. LOL. You have a good sense of humor, OP. I'll bet you're a blast at parties.

reply to post by puzzlesphere

isn't t possible to look at all religions, and pull out the commonalities to define a set of standards around theology?

It seems at some point in the future religion will have to, to remain relevant.

There IS a common theme; the lowest common denominator - The Golden Rule.

Treat others as you would like to be treated. THIS is found in ALL religions (except Satanism? As far as I can tell, they believe in worldly/carnal pleasures, but I don't know any of them to ask).

By "others" in the Golden Rule; I apply it to plants, animals, the Earth herself. Some think it applies only to humans; but it is the one thread that runs throughout the whole tapestry of "religions". (Not that all 'followers' follow the Rule, but there it is.)

Link

JESUS CHRIST:

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

"Jesus said to him, You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your mind and with all your soul… and You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
(Jesus Christ, Matthew 22:36-40)

BAHA'U'LLAH:

"O son of man! If thine eyes be turned towards mercy, forsake the things that profit thee and cleave unto that which will profit mankind. And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself."
(Baha'u'llah, The third Leaf of the Most Exalted Paradise, Tablets, p. 64)

BUDDHISM:

"Hurt not others with that which pains yourself or in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. One should seek for others the happiness one desires for one's self"
(Udana-Varqa, 5:18)

HINDUISM:

"This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others that which would cause pain if done unto you."
(Mahabharata 5:1517)

"Do not to others what ye do not wish done to yourself; and wish for others too, what ye desire and long for, for yourself. This is the whole of Dharma, heed it well."
(The Celestial Song, 2:65)

ZOROASTRIANISM:

"That nature ONLY is good when it shall NOT DO unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
(Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5)

"Whatsoever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
(Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29)

That which is good for all and any one, for whomsoever - that is good for me. What I hold good for self, I should for all. Only Law Universal, is true Law."
(Zoroaster, Yasana-Gathas)

JAINIST:

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated."
(Sutrakritanga 1.11.33)

SIKH:

"Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart."
(Guru Aranj Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib)

CONFUCIANISM:

"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
(Analects, 15:23)

"If one strives to treat others as he would be treated by them, he will come near the perfect life."
(Book of Meng Tzu)

WESTERN SCHOOLS:

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them."
(Pythagorean)

"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us."
(Aristotle, from Plato and Socrates)

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing."
(Thales)

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him."
(Pittacus)

"Cherish reciprocal benevolence, which will make you as anxious for another's welfare as your own"
(Aristippus of Cyrene).

"Act toward others as you desire them to act toward you"
(Isocrates)

TAO:

"Pity the misfortunes of others; rejoice in the well-being of others; help those who are in want; save men in danger; rejoice at the success of others; and sympathise with their reverses, even as though YOU WERE in their place."

"The sage has no interests of his own, but regards the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind, he is also kind to the unkind: for virtue is kind."
(T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien)

NATIVE AMERICAN:

"Love your friend and never desert him. If you see him surrounded by the enemy do not run away; go to him, and if you cannot save him, be killed together and let your bones lie side by side."
(Sur-AR-Ale-Shar, The Lessons of the Lone Chief)

"Do not kill or injure your neighbor, for it is not him that you injure, you injure yourself. But do good to him, therefore add to his days of happiness as you add to your own. Do not wrong or hate your neighbor, for it is not him that you wrong, you wrong yourself. But love him, for The Great Spirit (Moneto) loves him also as he loves you."
(Shawnee)

"Respect for all life is the foundation."
(The Great Law of Peace)

AFRICAN TRADITIONAL RELIGION:

"A SAGE is ingenuous and leads his life after comprehending the parity of the killed and the killer. THEREFORE, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so."
(Yoruba Proverb, Nigeria)

"One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
(Yoruba Proverb, Nigeria)

ISLAM:

"Not one of you is a believer until he desires for another that which he desires for himself."
(Muhammad, 40 Hadith of an-Nawawi 13)

"Do unto all men as you would they should do unto you, and reject for them that which you would reject for yourself."
(Mishkat-el-Masabih)

JUDAISM:

"What is hateful to you, DO NOT to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary."
(Talmud, Shabbat 31a)

"Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD."
(Moses, Leviticus 19:18)

CHRISTIANITY:

"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
(Matthew 7:12)

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
(Luke 6:31)

BAHA'I WORLD FAITH:

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets, p. 71)

"Lay not on any soul a load which ye would not wish to be laid on you, and desire not for any one the things ye would not desire for yourselves."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings LXVI, p. 128)

"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not. This is my command unto thee, do thou observe it."
(Baha'u'llah, The Hidden Words, Arabic # 29)

"Choose for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 30)

reply to post by puzzlesphere


Thou shalt not kill. But that one has been overlooked. It's as you say, no one likes adapters, right? There are moral standards in religion, but people are not adapting and make their own rules.

reply to post by puzzlesphere


Since "Religion" is man's attempt to reach God, it's standard will always be that of man.

The Bible says that "true religion" and undefiled before God, is to visit the widows and the orphans in their affliction.

That being said, man can never build that bridge to God. His standard is "holiness" and "without holiness shall no man see God." Yet it is impossible for man to be holy because our very nature is "anti-holy" or "sinful".

So what hope is there for us? Thanks be to God through the Lord Jesus Christ, that God built a bridge himself, through the death and resurrection of his own son, the "Word of God" made flesh. He made a way where there is no way. So that which is unholy and unclean can be declared clean through his atonement..

No, not a religion, a "relationship." The only acceptable "standard" is HIS standard. That "there is none other name given under heaven, whereby we must be saved, than the name of the Lord Jesus the Messiah. The Christ." Grace and peace.

Bruce