I only have a familiarity with Christianity and the “no other gods before me” thing. I am curious what other religions have to say about it.
My (lack of) religion’s attitude towards all religions:
May you all be touched by thy noodley appendage
I’ve seen that porn and I am not onboard, but you do you so long as nobody gets hurt.
“No God before me” can have, and does have in the history of Christianity, three possible interpretations.
- the exclusivist one (Evangelical churches mainly): the Christian God is the only God, you have to confess him directly to be saved.
- the inclusivist one (mainly the Catholic church, and some Protestants), the Christian God is the only God, but you can unknowingly pray him when you pray an other God within other traditions, in other words you can be Christian without knowing it.
- the pluralistic one (other Protestants), most religions are equally valuable, but if you are Christian you should pray only the Christian God.
Of course this is just a model, all positions are deeper than that and most people mix two or even the three models. I don’t know where the Orthodox Churches stand.
For myself, I tend to be somewhere between the second and the third model.
Two words: Spanish inquisition
Didn’t expect that.
You never do
Interestingly, Christianity is compatible with Judaism and Islam in that regard, though I’m not sure exactly what the other two say in kind.
The Christian God is the Muslim Allah, who is also the Hebrew Yahweh. All the exact same being.
Christianity embraces the God of the Torah but rejects the Muslim faith. There are exceptions but mainstream no.
You’re close, but some Christians would argue that the god worshipped by those of Jewish faith is not the same god either and therefore not embrace that god. Those Christians would say that since Jesus revealed the trinitarian (Father, Son, and Spirit) nature of their god, to reject that nature is to worship a different god altogether. Similar to how Muslims acknowledge their shared history and feel a respect for Judaism and Christianity, those Christians accept and respect those of Jewish faith, but will still point out their incomplete understanding of the god the Christians worship.
That is a belief that existed and maybe some still believe it, but I don’t think any large organizations would consider that canon. It’s generally considered a heresy, called Marcionism.
Christianity embraces the God of the Torah but rejects the Muslim faith.
Still, Allah is the same being as the Christian “God”.
I’m not saying Islam is canon to Christianity. Just that when Christians talk about God and when Muslims talk about Allah, they are talking about the same being.
Just like in English, we call the protagonist of the Pokemon anime “Ash”, but in Japan, he’s called “Satoshi”. But it’s the same character no matter which name you refer to him as.
Personally, as an agnostic (leaning atheist) I don’t have any particular dogma regarding other religions to follow. I will however share how I view religions.
-
I’ve yet to encounter a religion that is verifiably true. As such I consider the religions of other people to essentially be opinions (personal beliefs).
-
Opinions should not be held sacred in society, nor should they grant special rights.
-
The religions of others only really become a problem if they make demands based on said religious belief, attempt to impose their beliefs on others, or spread verifiably false information.
-
Buddhism is widely accepting of other religions. I’m atheist, and love the teachings of the Buddhas.
I always thought the Ottoman Empire’s millet system was interesting. Basically since it was a Muslim country that allowed other religions to exist, how do you rule them? Doesn’t seem quite fair to make them follow your religious rules, but also you are a religious empire protecting everybody and what’s in it for you to protect these non believers?
So they just had different legal systems set up for each religious community, and non-Muslims just had to pay a tax (the jizya).
It’s all about perspective
Tiny deism is quantum religion. And thus, it is all religions.
Nothing, I have none. #KISS
In Gita, Shri Krishna says “I am everything”. This kind of kills the “otherness” of everything.
The ‘religion’ I think most accurate is all in on a deity of light.
Given light can be more than one color at once when not measured and different separated eventual observers can each measure different results then as long as a deity of light was fundamentally unobservable during this life and only observed on a relative basis after departing it - such a deity’s qualities and characteristics are entirely up for grabs.
Believe what you want. If I’m right, all options are on the table - relative to you. So your beliefs don’t constrain anyone else’s or vice versa.
Even though I do think there’s a rational underlying mechanical objective truth to how that setup may have been achieved, my guess is most people wouldn’t like that version nearly as much as their own dearly held beliefs, spirituality, or superstitions, so my genuine hope is that after death what they most hoped to be the case for themselves is what they’ll find irregardless of how it works behind the scenes or what it might be for others.
Asking seriously: “ no gods before me”, does that mean it’s ok to have gods after that god?
Yes. Pavel Datsyuk is not God, but when he stepped on that ice, he was no longer a man, but a god.
It means “before” as in “in front of”, not “occurring previously to”
Okay, so, what about after? Meaning he’s #1, can you have a bunch of others behind him?
I guess like the Catholics do, with Mary and saints and such?
Some Christians in India worship Jesus as their top god, and local deities as secondary gods. I’m guessing this is common in places where Christianity spread peacefully into a culture with a polytheistic (and preferably decentralised) pantheon.
In Theravada Buddhism, it call other religious views as just Micchaditthi (Pali word), originally meaning just “wrong view”. But in recent years, atleast in my country the word is slowly becoming akin to stronger words like blasphemer, infidel, etc, which is quite sad because in the scripture, it seems obvious that the word wasn’t use in such meaning.
