“Coexist” and It’s Copycat Brother “Contradict”
Recently, it has come to my attention that a symbol is going around the internet playing on the classic “Coexist” symbol. This one, however, “Contradict,” points out that all the religious symbols on the page contradict each other:
There are a few variations of this new knock-off and I can’t speak on all of them. Please take into account that my focus is on this one in particular.
The main tenant of contradictmovement.org is that not all religions can be true because quite a few of them contradict each other. The man who originally created this image, Andy Wrasman, has a blog right here on wordpress. Andy is well-educated, and unlike many who argue similar causes, claims to actually have studied world religions. He wholeheartedly believes that Christianity is the true religion and that no others are true. The only education he values is that of knowing God. He wants to write a book on world religions and why they all contradict each other and Christianity is the only one that’s right. He states that “The message can be shared in numerous ways as the Holy Spirit leads, but there is a desperate need at this present time to contradict the popular misconception that all religions are true and in fact, lead to the same end goal.” Now here’s where it gets complicated. In one of his blog entries, he discusses the idea that truths may be found in all religions. “If Christ’s claim is true that he is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), then all truth would be God’s truth, no matter where it is found.” So, here he goes contradicting himself now. Because according to him, not all religions are true, but if all truth is God’s truth, then it follows that all religions are true because they are the truths of man born in the image of God. Or is it, rather, that none of the truths of man are truths because human beings cannot conceive of God’s truth? “The world cannot accept Him [the Spirit of truth], because it neither sees Him nor knows Him … But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 14:17; 16:13) If supposedly no one but a Christian born into God’s light can know the truth, why are we even talking about it? Everyone else is just an idiot, right? Just pity us poor fools and leave us be.
Which leads me into the original–Coexist. For the record, my definition is taken directly from Yahoo answers, which is probably taken directly from dictionary.com or wikipedia or something like that. The coexist bumper sticker 8 or so different symbols that either are or are around the letters that create the word coexist. The meaning of coexist directly from dictionary.com is: 1. to exist together or at the same time. 2. to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries: Although their ideologies differ greatly, the two great powers must coexist. The eight symbols come from various ideologies and religions. The first is a crescent moon with a star this symbol is used a vast variety of things from islamic symbols to symbols used on flags. The second is a peace sign a symbol for peace. The third is the letter e with male and female symbols incorporated into it. The fourth is the star of david used in the flag of jerusalem and also a religious symbol for the jewish. I believe the fifth is the letter i with the dot as a pentagram a symbol used with Wiccan and witchcraft. The sixth letter is the letter S with a ying and yang symbol behind it. Ying and Yang are a representation of perfect balance or equality used in Chinese Philosophy. And last the Cross or crucifix this symbol is used for the belief that jesus christ is our lord and savor the cross is what jesus was nailed to as a form of punishment called cucifixion hence the name crucifix. The meaning of the sticker is to bring people together no matter what background you are or what your idea of what is and what isn’t. The meaning is just to learn to coexist accept other people for who they are.
So why is any Christian challenging the “coexist” movement? I respect that Christians are pointing out the conflicting viewpoints, but I don’t think anyone who believes in “coexist” claims that there aren’t conflicting viewpoints. They’re not even really saying that people who believe there is only one truth have to believe in multiple truths. It simply says learn to live together. It is my understanding that Christ was a proponent of people learning to live together, to love, and to give help to all those in need, regardless of their background. So, I have to ask, like I so often do of Christians, would Jesus really be happy with people joining a mass counterstrike against “coexist?” Pointing out differences is one thing, but this movement screams of elitism by referencing the Bible. By saying Christianity is the only truth (just like other religions state they hold the only truth). Again, I don’t care if you believe that’s true. There are plenty of wonderful people in the world that hold that belief. But by spreading around this counterstrike, so obviously derived from “Coexist,” you are making the statement, whether directly or indirectly, that you are somehow better than everyone else, that divisions and differences make it impossible to live together. This, my friends, is the downfall of civilization. If we cannot live together despite our differing beliefs, our increasingly popular and diverse society will crumble at our own hands.
It’s funny. I mean, yes, most religions contradict each other in one way or another. Division, in this manner, was created by design as various cultures have different needs and seek different answers. But they also have a lot in common. Reincarnation, God in human form, sacred texts, a spirit world, body mutilation, and the afterlife are just some of the general categories these items fall into. “The Golden Rule”, “Love thy neighbor,” and “Speak Truth” are prolific in numerous religions. The differences are superficial really compared to the unifying role of commonalities. I could never go into all of the commonalities. I have neither the time nor the patience. But let’s just look at some of the key deities for example. In comparing Jesus, Mithra, Osiris, Adonis, Attis, Hercules, and Krishna, many have at least one thing in common. Commonalities include being born near the holiday we now call “Christmas,” being born of a virgin mother, leading a life of toil for mankind, having nicknames like “mediator”, “light bringer,” and “savior,” having died and risen to become a pioneer of human kind, and given commemorative meals. It’s fascinating, really, how much we all have in common. So why are we all out to destroy each other?
Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. Most are “the only truth” to countless people. And it’s fine to believe that. But, what’s not fine is not allowing others to have their individual beliefs in the truth. Who cares if they’re wrong? Is it really hurting you? Only if you fight them. Only if you threaten. Only if you belittle, offend, annoy…There’s a saying that hate is like a burning coal you are intending to throw at someone. The only one who gets burned by holding onto hate is you. This isn’t necessarily hate, but it’s close-minded. The Contradict movement is, for all intents and purposes, a bully. And yet, look at how many previously bullied people who have now found God are getting behind it. And before you go and argue that Coexist people are bullies, too, here’s a reminder–they aren’t expecting you to do anything but let people live out their own lives, as ignorant to your version of the truth as they want. It is a wise man who realizes that action speaks louder than any amount of scripture reading and referencing ever will.
In the post I wrote about all religions contain truth, I wrote, “If religions contain aspects of truth, it doesn’t mean that they are true in their entirety. They each would just contain elements of truth, but as a complete system of doctrine would be false. If one religion was true in its entirety, then it would be true, while all other religions would be false and only contain aspects of the truth.” I explained that “religions come not in isolated teachings or beliefs, but in systems of doctrines that form a complete faith.”
I also wrote that, “It seems clear that all religions cannot be fully and equally true. There are direct contradictions within the teachings of the world’s religions, such as Jesus is God (Christianity) and Jesus is not God (Islam), which eliminate the possibility that all religions are true.”
You are right in that I see Christianity as the only religion that is true in its entirety. From that understanding, I see that there are aspects of truth within other religions. Islam and Christianity and Judaism all three teach that there is only one transcendent God who created all things, but the three differ on the details. Buddhism teaches that life is suffering and that life is full of seasons of change. Christianity teaches the same, but the root of the suffering is different. In Buddhism it is desire, in Christianity it is sin.
August 22, 2012 at 11:05 pm
Yes, from reading your blog I was very impressed by your knowledge and eloquence. I guess the point is not that you don’t see the differences and respect them, but more in your choice of symbol for your endeavor. In fact, quite a few of my non-Christian friends were offended when a devout Christian friend posted it on Facebook to share with the world, which brought to my attention the matter at hand. Is it not possible to both contradict one another, but also live together? The selection of this icon appears to indicate that the two concepts cannot exist together. Which is true if people don’t open their minds, but not true if people can just accept differences. So I suppose what I am saying is that I don’t quite understand your stance. Is it possible to live in harmony, or not? And if it is possible, then why select the symbol that you did versus something that wouldn’t evoke such dichotomous thinking?
August 22, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Do you think posting this blog evokes dichotomous thinking?
August 23, 2012 at 1:37 am
To be honest, I’m sure to some it will, or at the very least support and validate those who have already initially seen the dichotomy, but I am the writer of a blog, that, up until I posted this, maybe got 1 view a day. I’m not out promoting my blog because typically only friends and a few others who have stumbled here are my only readers. Honestly, once the initial discussion is over, I feel most people will probably never look at my blog again. I’m not intending to create or hinder a movement and I am sorry if it seems that way. I only want to explore the ramifications of this, and, quite frankly, most if not all movements.
August 23, 2012 at 1:47 am
I can only share what happened to me and how I found out Jesus was real. I don’t want to force my “beliefs” on anyone. I honestly just don’t want anyone to go to hell. I didn’t believe in Jesus, I didn’t believe in Satan. I actually tried the Coexist thing by trying to combine different religions. It all ended very bad for me. You can call me crazy or whatever you want but I literally stood in the middle of the street after trying to kill myself with a plastic bag around my neck screaming at the top of my lungs for help and people drove around me. Nobody stopped, nobody cared they all just wanted to do their own thing and not be bothered. I was picked up by a police officer who took me to a mental hospital. I kept hearing a voice tell me that I needed to read the Bible. I kept saying,”No way, the #$@ing Bible is stupid, how’s the stupid Bible gonna help me?” Over and over I kept hearing it. I also had an evil voice telling me that it was god and that he wanted me dead and in hell because I had messed up everything. It insulted me all the time and everyone I looked at it insulted them too. Finally after shoving pencils in my ears to try to make the voices stop, I said,”Ok I need to read the Bible.” About three minutes later a nurse came in looked me dead in the eye and said,”We are gonna let you out now.” I was like,”Holy crap I’m really gonna read the Bible.” I got to a place where I was given a little book of John and I started reading and I saw Jesus in it and He was doing good things for people, healing them, forgiving them, washing them, just plain being nice to them. I thought in my head,”This isn’t the same guy who’s been telling me he’s god. This guy is nice. and He’s the only one I was denying was real.” I started to think and read more. I got to John 14:6 where Jesus say’s I am the way the truth and the life, No one comes to the Father but through me and it clicked. Out loud I said this voice ain’t god, it’s something else claiming to be god. I said out loud, “Jesus you’re real. wow, you’re real. I’m sorry I’m so sorry.” The next thing that happened tripped me out, “The voices stopped.” Sounds crazy I know, but Jesus healed me. Satan claims to be god, that’s why Jesus is the only way to the one true God. God loves everyone, He is not a God of guilt, and He wants to save everyone even a tattooed ugly loser like me. If He loves and forgives me. He surely loves and wants to forgive everyone. Just thought I’d share, I just want to help people, I hope I don’t offend anyone.
August 23, 2012 at 12:52 am
Coexist… What that organization began as, in theory, is good, just the same as desegregation of the south. However, somethings take a different turn in life. There are many people that do believe the Coexist movement is “All roads lead to heaven”, and promote it as such. Many cultures around the world, to this day, believe that the “swastika” is a positive image with positive meaning, yet one nut job used it for about 20 years and now everyone sees that as a racist symbol.
As Andy said in one of his videos, tolerance and coexistence are good, we must tolerate one another to peacefully coexist. But do not be mistaken that we must all conform. (some of that is my own words)
I believe the awareness that he brings its both good and relevant. No different than I having to explain to guys at work that the “DaVinci Code” is purely a Hollywood fabrication and not in fact Christianity.
August 23, 2012 at 12:55 am
Thank you all for your comments. I admire your efforts and experiences. My worry is that as good and harmless as the Contradict Movement may seem, that it will also take a turn for the worse because there are quite a few people who call themselves Christians, but twist the meaning and wisdom of the religion into something else, in fact no longer practicing Christianity at all, but instead a, forgive me, bastardized version of Jesus’ vision. And there is a great danger of that happening with this movement as well. There have been many cautionary tales in popular fiction as of late on the cost of conformity as well as the cost of refusal to conform. Any movement or countermovement needs to be aware of the delicate balance and challenge to society. Coexist and Contradict both start off as something good though systematically different. But when forced against each other, either, or likely both, can quickly take a turn for the worse. The creation of this new movement in itself is innocuous and likely only has the best interests at heart, but I fear, just as some people haven’t taken the Coexist movement to be what it was meant as, many will take this Contradict movement to mean something completely different than what was originally intended. I wish you luck with your movement, but more than that, I hope that it does not become part of another great excuse for my atheist friends, my Christian friends, and my non-Christian theistic friends to fight and separate.
August 23, 2012 at 1:37 am
Food for thought…Just another differing viewpoint if you are interested in exploring the matter further…http://www.enochmagazine.com/articles/general/the-coexist-bumper-sticker
August 23, 2012 at 2:03 am
The Author, thanks for the input and the concerns. Have you watched the video at http://www.contradictmovement.org? The first statements say that “co-existence” and “tolerance” are both necessary. If there is “co-existence” and “tolerance” there must also be contradictions, otherwise there would be no need for “tolerance” and “co-existence.” Right now, I don’t see the contradictions getting the equal weight. Ying (Tolerance) is missing its Yang (Contradictions).
My hope is that you will be able to now have a conversation with your non-Christian friends who have seen this logo and have been angered, what did you share with them? My hope is that it will open a door for you to share the Gospel with them, to share that beliefs do matter? What are their questions about the Christian faith, or the need to have any specific faith? Have you tried to answer those questions for them if you are a Christian (I assume you are from your comments, I missed that from your blog post)?
My experience is that atheists are actually pretty happy about this logo. I have regularly shared this sign on a college campus for two years and a majority of the people who see it displayed without the tagline “They All Can’t Be True – John 14:6″ think we are the atheist club. Yesterday, I set up this sign outside a grocery store and the sign did have the tagline, and someone still thought we were atheist. He pointed to it and questioned, “Atheists?” I said, “No, why do you think we are atheists?” He said, “Cause it says contradict.” We then shared, “It says that the religions contradict each other. That means they can’t all be true because of their contradictory teachings, but we are Christians and we believe that Christianity is true.” He shared one more comment on his way into the store. He wasn’t mad. On his way out, he exited the opposite door we were at, but he looked at us and we exchanged the peace sign. In my opinion, that was co-existence, and I was not silenced because of my exclusive beliefs, and I think he’ll think about our sign and maybe he’ll tell a Christian in his life about the encounter and the conversation will continue.
I don’t think you need to be so worried about the message being distorted. I’m taking the video down from my site. That’s the message, anyone can point to it and see what the original message is. When I finish writing the book and it is published, anyone can pick it up and know what the original message was. Just as anyone can pick up the Bible and read the teachings of the apostles! When Christianity gets distorted as you talked about, we can go to the root and see how it was twisted.
Thanks for sharing the logo and expressing your concerns. Look me up on Facebook if you want to message me in private. I’m not sure how often I’ll be checking back at this blog post to keep up with the conversations, but I definitely echo what Jake, George, Joshua, and Rodney are saying.
August 23, 2012 at 4:25 am
What I find interesting… The coexist sticker exists because of the inherit conflict withing the religions represented. In other words, the coexist sticker exists because the religions those symbols represent contradict…. For the sake of a long drawn out argument, lets assume it is not simply possible but probable for all religions to get along and coexist… My question becomes, what does that actually look like? And how does this inexplicable peace come about? Does Israel give up land they believe was promised to them by God so they can “coexist”. Do Muslims stop praying five times a day because there neighbors are bothered by the holy call to prayer? Do Christians stop evangelizing because it offends people when you speak of hell and judgement? How does coexist come about without compromise?
While I appreciate the sentiment behind the coexist stickers, how do we compromise when it comes to the Truth?
August 23, 2012 at 7:08 am
Sorry it’s taken me a few days to see this comment. I agree that there are no answers in Coexist to how it should come about or work. I think the idea, though I’m not the founder, so I can’t be certain, is that if people learned to live together and accept both the similarities and differences of their neighbors, we wouldn’t have to ask the questions of how a muslim in prayer and a Christian evangelist could live next door without offense because they could talk to each other about their individual beliefs. So many devoutly religious people seem, and forgive me, but this may not be the exact right word, “offended” by another group’s beliefs. For it to actually happen, people from all creeds would obviously have to come together and strong leaders from every religion would have to have a say in the way to approach and change the way of thinking among their more extremist followers. I would take people realizing that it doesn’t matter if others know “the Truth” or believe there’s a false “Truth.” There are no easy answers and coexist will likely forever remain a dream rather than a reality, but it is something people on an individual level can work toward in their own growth and spiritual path. I may have said it before, but if we choose to focus on differences, on who’s better or more right, we’re choosing to have more of the same history our dominant and non-dominant cultures have witnessed for thousands of years, and eventually it will destroy us all on some level. Mankind is likely to cause the downfall of mankind because of our inability to truly love one another.
August 26, 2012 at 3:53 am
I appreciate the clear and heartfelt response. I guess objective truth is simply an idea people of any religion intuitively understand. So my final question, Why is it fighting a war for a principle like freedom over slavery or religious freedom or from tyranny is largely considered, “right” and fighting a religious war for religious ideals are largely considered, “wrong”? Only slightly off topic, more just interested in your response. Thank you for your time.
August 26, 2012 at 10:32 am
I can’t speak for the world. What I can say is that I don’t think any war is necessarily right. Wars happen because there are bad people in the world who can’t seem to talk out their problems and make logical changes in a peaceful manner. Religious wars in particular seem to be the focus for two reasons–one being that many religions discourage violence and hatred, which are the essence of a war, and two being that people in general seem to have very negative views of world religions, possibly due to people who claim to be of a certain religion but do not act as a person of that religion should. This in turn creates an especially strong response to religious wars.
August 26, 2012 at 2:44 pm
I can only speak for myself in saying I don’t think any wars are right. They happen because people can’t talk about their issues and hear each other out. Unfortunately, this is a flaw of human beings and not likely to change. Religious wars are no more wrong than any other type of war, but they get more focus because of people who say they are X religion, but don’t act as people of X religion should based on their sacred texts, leading to poor and misleading images of a religious group.
August 26, 2012 at 2:48 pm
From “The Author”:
” I may have said it before, but if we choose to focus on differences, on who’s better or more right, we’re choosing to have more of the same history our dominant and non-dominant cultures have witnessed for thousands of years, and eventually it will destroy us all on some level. Mankind is likely to cause the downfall of mankind because of our inability to truly love one another.”
But what if a group thinks that what they believe is true and that that truth when grasped by anyone gives that person eternal life and saves them from eternal damnation? Wouldn’t that group have to share their message, and have to do their best to convince others of the truthfulness of that message for the sake of loving their fellow human being who needs to recieve the good news? This isn’t just Christianity that thinks this way, by the way.
Also, if there is a true faith, wouldn’t that true faith be “better” than a false faith or “more right” than the wrong faith?
Do you believe there is one true faith? Do you believe it is possible to know what is true, and what is false? If you think the answer is “no” to these last two questions, then I understand your point of view better. If there is no one true faith, then no faith is better or more right than another. And if we can’t possibly know what is true, there is no grounds for caring what others belief, unless of course one group is like HItler and his padres who believe a certain ethnicity is superior over all others and seeks world domination… I guess that’s when we can say one belief is better than another or more right even if we can’t know what’s true or false in this world, but on what grounds can we say the Nazi party was wrong?
September 3, 2012 at 9:59 pm
There is a truth, but who’s to say there aren’t multiple paths to one bigger truth? The same paths are not for everyone, nor should there be because everyone’s backgrounds are different. Since you’ve studied religions worldwide, I’m sure you’re familiar with the concept of the collective unconscious. If not, look into it, because it makes a lot of sense in my perspective. I also suggest if you haven’t, look into religion pre-dating those we commonly recognize today, especially tribal religions. The similarities in all religions is what I believe in. And if they’re different, it’s only because they have all strayed. It is irrelevant whether I consider myself a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, or an Atheist for that matter.
Bringing up the Nazis and Hitler is a mute point because their background and beliefs were purely political. I may have even mentioned them in past responses, but I’ve studied this issue in some depth since I wrote this particular blog, and based on what I have read at documentaries I have watched, it’s a completely different issue. Human and civil rights and violations have nothing to do with religion, so let’s keep that out of the discussion because we could go on for days about that particular issue and it really has very little to do with religion unless of course you want to draw a line between Nazi treatment of Jews and ____ religion’s potential treatment of _____ religion because of their differences and inability to understand each other in a civil way.
Honestly, I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue because I don’t expect to change your opinion any more than I think it’s appropriate for any religion to try to change another religion’s opinion. While this conversation is stimulating, it could go in circles forever without really getting anywhere.
September 4, 2012 at 12:49 am
I have read most of Joseph Campbell’s “Hero of a Thousand Faces.” If you aren’t familiar with it, he worked off of the concept of the collective unconscious and found that from the collective unconscious a single story for mankind emerges, which he calls the monomyth. I personally see that the collective unconscious is a sign that there is one absolute truth, that below our conscious level, all of humanity has the same internal longing and expectation for life and what is actually real. I also think that all religions come from a common source and that almost all of them have strayed, but I don’t believe Christianity has strayed, and I know you think that is elitist to say, but that is what Christianity teaches. Personally, I think the collective unconscious and the monomyth fit well with the Tower of Babel from Genesis in which all of mankind shared a common location, history, and tongue before being dispersed by God. From there, I think the straying began.
You are right that multiple religions could be right, and I do think that truth can be found in multiple religions, but due to their contradictory views on the “sacred,” I don’t see how it is logically possible for all of them to be true/right. If they all do lead to God, then many, if not all of them would be false, especially exclusive religions like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. If God is Unitarian, he cannot be Trinitarian, can he, and if God is transcendent as he is taught to be in those three religions, can pantheism also explain the nature of the divine truthfully?
I see Hitler and the Nazi party as being totally relevant. If religious pluralism is true, then why should pluralism only be true in the realm of religion? If religious truth is relative based on my experience, then why doesn’t the same hold true for morality? Wouldn’t morality also be relative? I think there must be absolute truth in morality, otherwise I can’t say what the Nazi party believed and practiced was incorrect and that my belief is better than theirs. And if I make such a claim, on what grounds can I can claim to know absolute morality when truth is subjective in the realm of religion, which by the way is the source by which many people’s and societies’ morality is derived.
But since you think Hitler should be off limits in this conversation, what about religious suicide bombers? What about the Spanish Inquisition? What about the Untouchables of Hinduism? Can we say any of these religiously motivated actions were right or wrong, if all truth is relative, being based simply upon individual experience?
And you are likely right, we should probably agree to disagree, and we likely are just spinning our wheels, but isn’t that what all this is about, both the “co-exist” and “contradict” positions, to spin our wheels, to dialog, learn the other position, get frustrated and still share a beer afterwards (as long as both parties don’t have a problem with drinking alcohol, I wouldn’t expect to finish with a beer with an orthodox Muslim, and I wouldn’t expect to do it with a Southern Baptist). I’m a big fan of the collective unconscious concept, so from this we have found some common ground, and I think it is interesting how you interpret it to mean that we’re touching on the same bigger truth, whereas I think we are all unconsciously aware of that bigger truth, yet some of us actually have a personal relationship with that truth in our conscious thinking.
I get that people don’t like it when people say they are wrong, when they think they are right, but if you stop and think about it, if I’m thinking that I am right, when I am being told that I am wrong, then the other person’s view would have to be wrong from my understanding. Now, I understand that you are saying that I am wrong in thinking that there isn’t just one path, and one path only to God, so therefore, from my perspective you’d have to be wrong that there are multiple paths to God. We both can’t be right on this topic. Since I think there is only one path, one way, to have eternal life, I must want to change your view, I must want to bring you into a relationship with the God I know, the God who I believe has revealed himself to humanity by stepping into our plain of existence through the person of Jesus Christ and through his life, death, and resurrection, who serves as our Stairway to Heaven, our connection from this finite life on earth to the infinite realm of Heaven! If I don’t want your view to change, if I don’t share with you that God forgives all your sins, all your guilt, and all your shame, because I know you believe something different is true, and because I don’t think you’d ever change your mind, so it’s not worth writing this out, then would I be loving you by letting you miss out on this amazing gift? If I believe I know God, and that God has shown himself in history and proven himself to be a God of love, would I really know God if I thought it wasn’t worth convincing you and pleading with you to believe the Gospel message that I believe? If you are not very familiar with this Gospel message, I recommend reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John from the New Testament.
If you care to respond to this, but don’t want a reply back from me, just post at the top of your next comment that this is the final comment, and I’ll give you the last word on your blog site. Peace be with you, and I pray that one day that peace will come to you from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
September 4, 2012 at 6:45 am
I have studied Joseph Campbell. His work is fascinating and anyone can learn a lot from him.
To all your questions about religious acts of violence (and the Nazis for that matter), I think this type of behavior was addressed by the human rights which, in its modern form, were developed following the fall of Nazi Germany. These secularized rights apply to all human beings regardless of background, allowing people’s actions to be judged not by their individual belief systems, but by a set standard derived from the work of people from multiple nations. Does everyone agree with these rights? No. But, that was the purpose of them. That’s not the cleanest answer and I know it is possible to argue that those who do not believe in human rights have to be considered equally right by my standards, but that’s why I think it’s important to address all religious atrocities as secularized. Almost every religion has murdered, maimed, and so on. Perhaps that is one of the areas in which all religions have strayed. Or perhaps that is the modern day evolution of our proto-religion’s idea of blood sacrifice. Regardless, there are elements of any religion that are disagreeable. Hence the need for secular controls. I’m not a huge proponent of mixing religion and political life, but human rights are all we have to measure with right now. Unless, of course, religions all want to come together and create a collective system of checks and balances. I’d be okay with that, too. I’m sorry that isn’t a direct answer, but that’s the best I can do. I’ve really enjoyed this conversation and I hope to be able to respond the best I can, but I honestly can’t keep up with the discussion anymore as I am very busy with work and life away from the computer. Hopefully you understand.
September 5, 2012 at 3:00 am
While it is a noble wish, there are a few inherit and inconvenient flaws:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=556384854390877&set=pb.210188172343882.-2207520000.1358728197&type=3&theater
Ironically it can and has repeatedly been pointed out that those who promote ‘tolerance’ and ‘coexistence’ can be the most intolerant and judgmental towards those that disagree with them
January 21, 2013 at 12:44 am
Whyman, the same can be said for many “Christians” and other devout followers of faith unfortunately. It’s not my job to convince you that you’re wrong or that I’m right because really, you’re not wrong. It’s just that you don’t have the only “right” out there. Someday you’ll see why the entire argument is ridiculous to begin with. Or not. I honestly don’t really care. These circular arguments are only limiting our ability to live together peacefully.
January 21, 2013 at 4:10 am
I stumbled across this blog while searching for imagery for the Coexist sticker. I was then given an image of it followed by the Contradict logo, with the words “We must learn to Coexist, but let’s not pretend they don’t Contradict.” I found the image striking because it indeed shows what Mr. Wrasman is stating. Each of these religions does indeed contradict one another. But that doesn’t mean they can’t coexist. As to the argument of Christianity holding the singular truth that exists as the reality of the world, I would then state that each religion in a way has a piece to the puzzle, and is unwilling to share theirs. The reason I state this, and keep in mind that I was raised Christian but exposed to other religions growing up, is that if there is one thing that Christianity and all its teachings has given me, it is this lesson. God’s way is love, and His law is choice. If God exists, and is truly a presence in our world, as humans, we cannot fathom what God is. God is inexplicable because God is neither human nor inanimate. Neither tangible nor intangible. God is. I believe that is why religions fight. We all have this idea of what God is, but cannot agree on the definition. As Andy said, God cannot be Unitarian and Trinitarian. But why not? God is God, and according to all religions, God does what It wants. Religions cannot coexist as they are currently because they are unwilling to admit that there are multiple ways to the truth. They believe that they are THE truth, THE understanding, THE way to God. But who is to say that the Buddhists know anything more than the Christians and that Islam has any better understanding than Judaism? It’s all part of a puzzle. A book that really opened up the idea of being unified to me was East of Eden by John Steinbeck. It was not an inherently religious text, but one of its messages had a way of teaching you something about what faith is. One of the characters, a Chinese man who converts to Christianity goes back and studies three versions of the Bible. It is only after he finds the oldest version of the text, the Hebrew, that he understands. Instead of “thou must” or “thou will”, the Hebrew translation states “timshel” the Hebrew word for “thou mayest”. Which means we have a choice. Do we continue to fight, and bicker, and disagree, and kill, or do we choose to come together, not necessarily to agreement or compromise, for no one need give anything up in their belief system, but to consensus, to the idea that there are multiple versions of truth, that all religions are perspectives of God. Only then, in my opinion, will we reach what it means to “Coexist”.
May 14, 2013 at 10:18 pm