Which Religion? Aren't they all the same?

[Q. C. Locatus Barbatus]

Salvete,

Som of you may already have noticed I'm quite sceptical towards (any) religion. I look upon them as something humans created because they have a biological need for it. But I do not judge people following any religion, because no-one has ever proven that that person should be wrong.

But If I make a short analysis, it is clear to me that most religions seem to be about the same thing. One God or more Gods, virtues and honor, praying and sacraments,... They seem to come back in any religion.

My question: Aren't all religions in fact the same? Isn't the difference only a matter of time and local culture?


Valete,

Locatus

[Anonymous]

I would actually have to disagree not all religions are the same, all though your basic theory is good. The reason I disagree is that religions can vary from ethics to basic conceptual theories and practice. Traditional Buddahism doesn't even have a god per say. Some religions focus on how individuals live their lives in respect to morality. Others focus purly on the practice and ritule of the religion. Certian Chrsitian sects believe what a person does in their life actually has no bearing on where they will spend eternity, that is has already been deciced. So for them the sacrements, except for babtism, have little importance. So saying all religions are the same just since they involve sacrements and prayer is too simple. Even in concept of prayer the interpetation is so varied that the definition will vary depending on what religion you ask.

[Quintus Aurelius Orcus]

Salve Locate

You could say that down to the core, all religions are the same. So your position could be correct. The only difference lies probably in the approach to the Gods and to the tradition in general.
Hellenismos shows similarities with Kemetic, Middle Eastern religions and Hindoe religion as with Teutonic and Celtic religions. Even though my answer might show some flaws, it is what it is. There are people who say that most European religions derived from a Indo- European tradition which could tie most traditions to one and another. I'm not going to say that this statement is false or not, but i will say that it is more about personal belief. If one believes that all religions are essential the same, than he might be correct. If another one believes the opposite, he might be correct aswell. But if there are evidence to support the theory that religions are the same, than there is no denying it.
To me, the traditions might vary but the Gods can be identified with another through character (mythological, religious) and function. It still doesn't mean that the Gods are the same because i'm believe that all Gods stand alone and are not aspects of another deity.
Identifying Hellenic Gods with Roman Gods is one thing because these two traditions are, to me, very close to eachother and stand closer to one and another than any other tradition.
vale

[Anonymous]

My question: Aren't all religions in fact the same? Isn't the difference only a matter of time and local culture?

My answer: Dosn’t religion differ ? Arn’t the similarities only a matter of generalisation and universalisation ?

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Belene,

But we are all humans, and most people have spiritual needs... I think it's more logical that most religions are expressions of a universally shared need for spirituality, faith or belief with differences in history and culture rather than the other way around.

Also, if I follow your line of reasoning this could mean that some (or all) religions are wrong in their beliefs and assumptions.

Vale bene,
Draco

[Anonymous]

Slave Draco

But we are all humans, and most people have spiritual needs... I think it's more logical that most religions are expressions of a universally shared need for spirituality, faith or belief with differences in history and culture rather than the other way around.

Humans also have mateial needs for things such as clothing, shelter and food. It dosn’t follow that everything you eat is good for you just because it’s edible. Neither are all religious beliefs & practices food for the soul.

Also, if I follow your line of reasoning this could mean that some (or all) religions are wrong in their beliefs and assumptions.

I think it’s a matter of degrees of validity.

Vale

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Slave Draco

Slave? HAVE YOU BEEN CALLING ME A SLAVE?

You've been tagged by the Latin Inquisition, my friend. By the way, expect a reply to your mail soon.

Humans also have mateial needs for things such as clothing, shelter and food. It dosn’t follow that everything you eat is good for you just because it’s edible. Neither are all religious beliefs & practices food for the soul.

There are no cultures on this earth which eat food which is poisonous or non-edible to others. Also, name me a religious belief and/or practice which is no soul food.

Optime vale,
Draco

[Anonymous]

Salve Draco

It's a fair cop! Sorry! I in no way meant to imply any kind of servitude.


Bad Food: There are various schools of thought from Fruitarians, Vegans, vegitarians & etc, as well as nutritionists. Who will debate endlessly on the utility of various foodstuffs and I'm sure that a really big, sticky, sugary cream, cake is not really much good for you.

Bad Soul food: How about having your heart ripped out by an obsidian blade and having it, still beating, thrust in your face. As the life drains away from your body?

Vale

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve mi slave Draco

There are no cultures on this earth which eat food which is poisonous or non-edible to others. Also, name me a religious belief and/or practice which is no soul food.

The Hmong eat nightshade, a close relative of belladonna, which I doubt any other culture would find edible. As for religious beliefs and/or practices, well, some are stereotyped as cults if they are seen as not providing a benefit for the soul. In my judgement those who profess to satanism are following a religious practice that is detrimental to their soul. Also in my view followers of certain sects who preach a religion of hatred are not being benefitted.

Vale
Piscinus

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salvete amici,

You both have a point.

But I do believe my main point still stands: many cultures may have many different tastes in terms of religion/food and the extremes of the spectrum will most likely never adopt the other's patterns or even part of it. However, I still don't think there is one kind of food/religion which is good for one culture and poisonous for the other.

The example of sects poses a greater problem for my theory.

I could say that sects equal drug use. People all over the world use drugs even though they are detrimental for their health on long-term and if used unwisely (almost always in the case of hard drugs). Perhaps sects are much the same.

Valete,
Draco

[Anonymous]

all religions come from spiritual need and serve to spiritual food but through cultural backgrounds and concepts... so they are different from one culture to others
but if they are really what they want to be, help for spirituel needs and spiritual food, they are all true without to be all the same
but revelated relgion as monotheism derivated from abraham are not true relgion because they go against the law of religion, feed the spirit with their intolerance... the only fact that jews, christians and muslims say "our relgion is the ONLY true one" shows it is a false relgion because this one don't know anithing of the essence of religion, the cultural work on spiritual needs, but claims to goes down directly from Heavens are revelated thruth
Philippos helios

[Anonymous]

Salvete!

I disagree that all Religions are the same. There are connections between Religions which stem from connections between the peoples following and "creating" these Religions. This is probably apparent in the Pre-Christian Indo-European Religions which share certain connections and could be described as religious cousins if not brothers.

One thing I despise is Universalism, I see it as a mass homogenising force that destroys cultural and religious diversity in our world thus diminishing the cultural and traditional richness created by our predecessors.

This Universalism is typical of Christianity and Islam which seek to include all into the reign of their God with no distinctions made for varying Cultures and Peoples. Eventually these Universalistic Religions reek damage and only absorb a limited amount of past traditions and beliefs as in the case of Christianity.

Religions are created by enlightened human beings of different cultures, and it is this difference that should be treasured by the adherent of a particular faith because that is part of his heritage.

I consider Universalism in Religion as equal to Religious Imperialism, and I would not tolerate Imperialism, to each his own and no trespassing into my grounds.

Valete!

[Gnaeus Dionysius Draco]

Salve Ultor,

Welcome to our forum!

There are several ways of looking at universalism. There is your way, which is shared by many other people of different persuasions who try to protect their own (or another's) culture and keep it from disappearing or changing into "mass culture". There's the way of radical people which many of us will oppose; they will try to destroy other cultures and replace it with their own consciously (the Taliban blowing up millennia old Buddhist statues, for example, or 19th century missionaries in Africa) or unconsciously (capitalist pop culture spreading throughout the world). A third way, which I adhere, is welcoming globalism in many areas. At its best, globalism can be a communication with a larger community.

An example. Ireland has only 4 million inhabitants. Yet it is more renowned than Belgium, which has 10 million inhabitants, and there are more world-famous Irishmen than there are Belgians. Global culture has enlarged Ireland from a troubled backyard of the ancient British Empire to a culturally influential and well-known nation.

Now, when issues of universalism and globalism are brought up with respect to religion, I wonder about a few things. Some groups link their own identity to ethnicity, such as some Asatru branches. Others allow in people of all races and cultural backgrounds. Look at us. Of our more prominent members, Marius, Piscinus and Tergestus have Romance roots. But others like Mus, Lupus or myself have none whatsoever. Yet, we somehow feel connected to a shared European Roman history. Would that make the former trio more "true"? It's hard to define borders I think.

Another example I refer to is Buddhism. It has been constantly adapted and changed by many cultures (Indian, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese) but still it has survived. It has always been able to keep its core teachings and adapting to the culture of the land it was exported to. I think this is an example we could learn from, and not only that, I even see parallels with the religio Romana as that, too, was able to adapt and incorporate many other influences without losing its own identity for a long time.

Optime vale!
Draco

[Anonymous]

I believe one can distinguish two types of religions. On one hand one has the traditional, ehtnic or reconstructionist religions, wich are very close to eachother, especially Hellenismos(my own religion) and Religo Romana. Of course there are some differences, but the caracteristics of for instance Zeus and Iuppiter are very similar. One could say that they are like 2 branches of one tree. On the other hand, one can distinguish the revealed religions. These religions often possess a messianic message. They concentrate around a Sacred Script and usually seek to convert people. This is something foreign to most traditional religions. I this aspect, there are differences among religions.
Both types of religion teach however, peace, virtue and truthfullness. In that aspect all religions possess the same message. It is only in the way of expressing that they differ considerably.

Hoping to have answerd your question,
Khairete/salvete,
Sokrates Eleuterium

[Anonymous]

Excuse me for using the wrong name... Little misunderstanding...


Khairete,

Perikles Eleutherius (Cicero)

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Perikles

I ...
Both types of religion teach however, peace, virtue and truthfullness. In that aspect all religions possess the same message. It is only in the way of expressing that they differ considerably.

All religions share a basic concept with science. They all assume a determinist universe. No action is made without another action first causing it; nothing exists that has not been caused. In its own way science, too, teaches peace, virtue, and truthfulness. Science can be its own religion for some, and it can become a prostelying religion.

Vale

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Perikles

I believe ... On the other hand, one can distinguish the revealed religions. These religions often possess a messianic message. They concentrate around a Sacred Script and usually seek to convert people. This is something foreign to most traditional religions.

In a sense the Religio Romana might be considered a revealled religion since its original rites that we attribute to Numa came from his inspiration from the Gods. Many of the innovations that were made to the Religio Romana resulted from the Sibylline Oracles that were taken while she was inspired by the Gods. Also there is a strong tradition for any practitioner of the Religio Romana to consult the Gods and have Their will revealled.

The Religio Romana is a tradition based in written records. The sacred scriptures you refer to for Judaism, Christianity and in part Islam, is a form of history not unlike the one offered by Livy. Livy's history is based on previously written sources. For example Fabius Pictor's Annales and the Libri maximi We know that there were sacred scriptures in the Religio Romana in the past, one example being the Sibylline Oracles. There were also highly esteemed commentaries written by the pontifices and augures that could be compared to the Talmud. It is most unfortunate that our sacred scriptures and esteemed literature was destroyed by the excesses of others. All that remains of our sacred scripture today are a few scraps and brief references.

The messianic tradition, well, that assumes an entirely different concept of the Universe, does it not? I mean, to want to be "saved" by a messiah one would have to feel a need to escape from something, and since that something is this life in this world, then there is a basic assumption that the world is an evil place. Certain faiths take that notion further than others. The idea of personal guidance for a divine personality is certainly not alien to the traditional faiths. The idea of divine guidence leading one's spirit into a higher existence is not alien to the traditional religions either. The mysteries teach that there is more to the Universe than just this world and that one may elect to evolve onto higher levels of existence. The mystery that is revealled by most of the mysteries is that YOU ARE GOD. That is quite different from messianic traditions that attempt to separate the individual from the divine.

Vade et vive in pacem deorum

[Anonymous]

But as you may know, there was not One Truth , like that what is being propagated in e.g. Christianity. Prophecies does not mean "revealed. Revealed religions are religions wich have only one important prophet and and they deny any other doctrine than their one.
Religio Romana is definetly not about that
By the way, Livius wrote histories, designed in support for Emperor Augustus 's policies. It was definitley not a bible like thing

valete/khairete,

Perikles Eleutherius.

[Horatius Piscinus]

Salve Perikles

I believe that there are more than one idea on what constitutes a revealled religion, and I see nothing in that to warrant miscontruing there being only one path to follow. There are many gods and goddesses on which to call, each capable of offering us their guidance, revealling what is best for us individually. As Symmacchus pointed out "What does it matter by which wisdom each of us arrives at truth? It is not possible that only one road leads to so sublime a mystery." Only a fool would think there is but one version of the Religio Romana in its vast diversity. Only a fool would think that only the Religio Romana is a proper path to follow. No Roman ever claimed such, as Romans always paid the proper respect owed to the gods in the locale they found themselves, and in accordance to the proper rites of that locale. Denying that there is more than one god or goddess, insisting that there is only one to follow, amounts to atheism in its denial of all other deities. It is an impious person who could make such claims of exclusiveness in worship.


Now about Livy, actually Augustus hated Livy and his history, or so Tacitus mentions, because Livy's history promoted the Res Publica Libera in opposition to the imperial system Augustus imposed. Since some of Livy's sources were the Libri maximi and Pontifical commentaries, as well as earlier Annales, it is rooted in the religious tradition of the Religio Romana and is in some instances our best record of certain religious aspects of Rome. The fetial rites for example seem to come from a written source, the Romans were not using fetials in Livy's time, until Augustus restored their use, and at points Livy has to explain some aspects of their rites to Romans who were unfamiliar with earlier traditions. Likewise at the beginning of every year Livy tells of prodigies and rites taken to assuages those prodigies, that appears to result from a written record, the Libri Maximi. At other points Livy expresses doubts over an oral tradition he found in some of his sources, those that were family histories. Then too, archaeological evidence, when compared to Livy's record, in general does not dispute Livy [others would claim archaeology tends to confirm Livy.} so over all I would say it is a better record, embodying not only Rome's history but some of its traditions, folktales, wisdom literature and various details of its religious tradition as well. It embodies the mos maiorum on which the tradition of the Religio Romana is based. In that it serves our purposes just as the Judeo-Christian religions hold their texts.

Vale optime

[Anonymous]

Salutatus sis,

Noting differences does not mean that I don't respect the Judaeo-Christan Doctrine!!
I also don't clame exclusiveness in my point of view.
It's just the way I see it

Vade in pacem deorumac dearum,

Vale,

Perikles