EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME

The more I read the less I understand about Unitarian type doctrine. I refer not to the specific doctrine of the Unitarian church, but to adherent’s attestations mined from reading their philosophical explanations. I am writing this, not to advocate for a particular faith but rather to advocate subscribing to only one specific faith, or no faith at all.
I admire any reasonable effort to reduce or eliminate conflict in the world. Should we not visualize world peace? In that light, it is one thing to embrace the people of all faiths, and quite another to claim to embrace all faiths. If I thought most people making these contentions specifically meant the former I would be writing for nothing. It is the later idea with which I take issue.
In youth, those idealistic days of university, of unspoken but ingrained feelings of immortality, of fresh new knowledge learned from words uttered aloud yet absorbed as if whispered in a secret room known only to the discerning few, of templates for living conceived before actually having a life, in that youth we created new and unique ways (we thought) to reconcile everyone to everything. If people would just grasp what we proposed, and could muster our methodology of thought, strife would evaporate inside a generation. The clever parable of the blind men standing around the elephant incorrectly guessing what they were touching sounded, no, it actually felt so real, and conclusive, and gosh it even involved a king. I’ve heard it told as if it occurred in India, and isn’t that part of the world just more tuned in spiritually? After all the Dali Lama is a neighbor and that guy is seriously in touch with himself, and the planet, and the great cosmic campus shut-in isn’t he? Ours would be the true Age of Aquarius.
Some things that are different are not mutually exclusive. We cannot make everyone’s skin the same color, force all to settle on one language, or foster agreement on people’s favorite foods. But some think they can, with love, break down the boundaries of religious differences. While the route taken to arrive at the place of reconciliation is heady, academic, spiritual, technical, philosophical, and emotional, the resulting strategy for religious congruence is basic. We need only ignore the differences and embrace the similarities. It works well in areas like racial harmony. We can (oh if only) ignore the differences in skin color, accents, perhaps tastes, and embrace the humanity in all humans. There exists no difference that precludes the sameness. It doesn’t only feel right to do so, it IS right to do so, and the world is (could be) a better place for it.
What about religion?
First of all, it may well be in the nomenclature that the misconception arises. I never liked the word “religion” as we use it today. It is a general concept that describes a set of beliefs that can be further delineated with specificity of deity and practices. Some general concepts accommodate picking and choosing. For example, décor describes a general idea, within which there are subdivided labels that spell out the specific type of décor. Just because one person prefers vintage retro décor and another fancies French country cottage, it does not preclude a third from choosing aspects of each and creating a unique combination. Vintage retro French country cottage may sound ridiculous, but there’s nothing stopping someone from adopting it. And at the end of each process the house can be called fully “décor-ated”. Religion does not work that way.
Using the main monotheistic faiths as examples, each has as a tenant that the god of that faith is the only god. Christianity claims Jesus is the ONLY way to reach God the Father. Islam maintains that Allah is the one true god. Jews believe the messiah is yet to come. The god of each religion can be considered the “same” god due to their monotheistic beliefs. But, it is the nature of god, and how we relate to him that is the critical difference. It is the sameness that leads people astray when they don’t go deep enough to discover the differences. If we accept a god exists it would be beneficial to know him would it not? It is no small feat to create creation. A being with that task on his resume can do great good or great harm to us the created. Ignoring him is, however, an option and many avail themselves to it.
But those who confess god’s existence and their belief therein, and then begin to draw upon all kinds of resources to relate to him do themselves a disservice. Again, in theory this group accepts the fact that we are the created. How arrogant therefore, that by reading interpretations and pronouncement from other members of the created, people can begin a statement with “I believe” and then proceed to describe a theology that has been generated in the minds of those created by the god they seek to understand? Can the created dictate how to approach the creator? Can we prescribe our own beliefs and foist them upon god?
To avoid this inherent conundrum and remain within today’s socialized tendency to offend no one, Unitarian types offer that all beliefs are of equal import and each may choose their own path to god, including one of the main religions or one pieced together from them, adding to it new and well intentioned feel good pronouncements and interesting mysticisms. More problematic though is the general intimation that anyone can believe anything and it’s all good.
The Bible says that the only way to God is via His son Jesus, and bold Christians will state unequivocally that aside from that path one will not arrive in heaven. Muslims are so convinced of the absolute authority of Allah and the proclamations of his prophet that they react to divergent views in ways ranging from treating non-Muslims as second-class citizens to viciously murdering unbelievers (Christians have done so in the past as well). Just these two assertions render the statement, “all beliefs are of equal value and there are multiple paths to god” to be meaningless gibberish. If all faiths lead to God, Christianity leads to God, and Christianity says Jesus is the only way to God therefore all faiths don’t lead to God.Logic hurts.
Blatant self-contradiction is the norm in our polarized society. We save the whales and kill the babies, we grouse about gasoline prices but prevent new supplies, we oppose the war and support the troops (huh?), we rally against mass murder in Sudan and choose to ignore it when it happened in Iraq, we want women liberated excluding Iraqi and Afghan women, statutory rape with boy victims is a joke but with girl victims it is a felony, we rationalize the slaughter of innocents by beheading or bombing by saying we simply must reach out to the perpetrators; it goes on.
Is it any wonder we can so easily accept that all beliefs are of equal merit even while some of those beliefs covered by that statement specifically require adherence to a narrow doctrine at the exclusion of others? When we internally generate feelings of peace and love for everyone and everything, and profess to the spiritually hungry that we have intuitively arrived at the truth, many grasp on and cling. It feels so right. It requires no accountability except to love! What could be wrong with that? No one gets hurt right?But the canard is as old as mankind himself. We follow the circuitous path of our beliefs not by attempting to be led by god, but rather by preferentially leading ourselves. It leads us right back to the fallen place where we were all born, the absolute self centered faith in no one or nothing but ourselves. I would say that inward focus is, contrary to tolerant gentile wisdom, the pinnacle of closed mindedness.