Morals and Prophets, Pt. 2

The second installment is in regards to the belief spoken of by the minister that Mohammad was a false prophet, that belief in him is ill-founded and misplaced, and that his followers are on the wrong path. I take issue with this.

I have always taken an issue with the notion that one religion or philosophical belief is any better or more just than another. Obviously, each individual will come to their own conclusions about what they feel most comfortable believing in and that's how I believe it should remain - personal. The idea of Christ being your personal lord and savior might send shivers of delight down your spine and make the world sing around you, but it may be The Goddess who does that for another individual. Is one better than the other? Not in the grand scheme of things, no. To me it would be like saying that a doctor is better than a lawyer - both play their part in a society but they do not fill the same roles or fulfill the same needs. However, people in both professions are needed. Why then should it be any different when it comes to spirituality? Why do so few people recognize the fact that not everyone will believe identically but that it's okay? It strikes me as being wholly illogical and very narrow-minded.

Now, in relation to the above paragraph and to address the issue at hand, at the service that I had attended the preacher spoke about how Christians should be the light onto the world. Christians, he said, should lead by example and not only by their words but in displaying a proper and moral way to live as well. This would include, of course, ushering those who stray from the "wrong" paths following the "false" prophets and to lead them onto the "right" path following the "right" prophet, Jesus. This insinuates that one religion is more valid than another. I find this to be highly offensive. Who says you're right and the other person is wrong? You? Your Holy book? Well, their Holy book says the complete opposite. Who has more to back up their argument now? Nobody. Despite all the differences in "The Big Three" religions they are all essentially the same and are essentially worshipping the same God. Half of the Bible consists of Jewish liturgy, while the other half mostly consists of stories about the Jewish savior. The Koran takes many of its teachings from Judaism and Christianity and lists Jesus as a very important prophet, but merely attributes the high status to Mohammad instead (to break it down most simply). Why then all the fuss? Is it really that important to prove that you're on higher moral or spiritual ground than another?

In other words, Mohammad is not any more a false prophet than Jesus was. These men hold different degrees of importance to different faiths and to different people. Does this mean one is more important than the other? Most certainly not. Importance is only present if you assign it to something, very much like meaning. What is important to you is not important to everyone. What is sacred to you is not sacred to everyone. And what is so wrong with that?