Alan Davie said:
. But no matter how much they tell me these things it is in my nature to question something that is so obvious. At one point when I got older I almost gave up religion and God completly until I started to question how can there not be a God? So I sort of went back into religion only to study it and still to this day I continue to do so. I want to figure out a way I can merge all the religions into one religion, that would end a lot of confussion, suffering, and sorrow IMHO.
.? It is for the same reason why I want a one world religion. There will be less conflict and more understanding to the religions.
I said:One is also an ideal - and open to abuses. One religion would oppress those who disagreed, one world government would oppress the voices of dissent. Simply my personal feelings.
"You cannot have all the world agree, unless you cut some tongues out". I think that's a saying from somewhere.
_Z_ said:Alan, hello.
I agree there are many paths, so why not have a universal approach! I believe in accepting philosophies from all sources, and acknowledging that all religions are right and wrong. In the end they are all ways to help you find your way – they should learn from each other!
Z
I said:One is also an ideal - and open to abuses. One religion would oppress those who disagreed, one world government would oppress the voices of dissent. Simply my personal feelings.
"You cannot have all the world agree, unless you cut some tongues out". I think that's a saying from somewhere.
. It would end a lot of confusion and there would be less to no wars on religion..
. yes any philosophy will have its pitfalls, and all if taken too literally end up with dogma. But the idea is that a universal approach doesn’t allow for dogmatism, because one always must respect another’s views – indeed should except philosophies from other sources. Being of a religion [Druidry] that believes ‘once it is written it is lost’ & ‘the truth is naked’, then how can I have a literal interpretation?
) Ok, maybe we don't get touchy-feely with the man with the AK (gun), but ummm, please tell me where I've distorted the Man's words, eh? I mean, ya know - WWJB (who would Jesus bomb)? And uhhh, like DUH - newsflash: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind! That is like, so not in vogue any more, ya know? Just so we don't get stuck gawking at the one from Galilee, or the one from Nepal, or the one from Persia ... I think we'll be alright. Very simple: The more skilled artists have come to teach the less-skilled, and if we couldn't learn, they wouldn't bother. Rocket science? Hmmm. Rudimentary to the Great Ones ... their chariots have visited the Far-Off worlds untold aeons ago. One day they'll show us that, too. But first, let's get past the "my gun is bigger, I will kill you first & deader" stage. Eh?
_Z_ said:Bandit.
But I get your point, especially as I am sure that the ancient druids - as lawmakers, would have been reasonably strict & dogmatic about their laws!
However although I am a druid type person [and been through the twenty year apprentiship], I don’t believe in being of any given religion even druidry, I simply learn from all!
I like to have both a ‘god exists’ philosophy, and an understanding with no gods whatsoever!
Z
taijasi said:(I got a bit long-winded, but that's nothing new ...
It seems to me that a (Unified) World Religion, just as one's own individual freedom of religious practice, would not be about dogma. As discussed in the facism thread, this is just wrong on principle. Forcing beliefs or some particular religious practice on others isn't simply un-American, it is spiritually offensive. From this angle, our freedom to choose is of vital importance, and must never be encroached or denied.
But I don't think the idea of One World Religion, even in concert with a United League of Nations (such as the U.N.), is in conflict with our inherent right to choose. We may either choose to acknowledge the `World Religion' (and aspirations of the UN), or we may practice our own style of worship, and maintain our own specific beliefs. The idea of uniting, imho and in my mind, is not about dogma, beliefs, or even about specific methods of practice, per se. Each of these might enter in, somewhat, but the overall emphasis should and would be ... the matter of princples, values and ideals.
In this we might turn to authors like Joseph Campbell, specifically his work called The Hero with a Thousand Faces, which addresses the Universal pull toward betterment found within us all ... in its comfortable & familiar guise - the ideal of the Hero. We might also look to the writings of Robert Muller, whose excellent work with the United Nations over the years should be recognized and celebrated by all. The beautiful example of hands-on service provided by Mother Teresa is something that (potentially) reaches into everyone's heart, regardless of race, religion, creed or social standing. And the Dalai Lama's invitation to practice loving-kindness (another way of stating the Golden Rule) as our religion... is surely the safest & fastest way to guarantee peace & prosperity for the entire planet.
It is sad to see that the capitalism and individualism (often manifesting as materialism, and outright selfishness & greed) of the West have not been able to meet with & yield to the Ideal of Spiritual Community that stands so clearly before us. This is the only religion that can deliver Humanity at this time in history, because of the trends toward globalization and toward group activity active in the world today. From the mass media (radio, TV, advertising, printed media, email, Internet, Web) to a globalized economy to travel and volunteerism, we are all inherently involved in the progress and the well-being of each other. The illusion of separateness cannot last much longer if we wish to reach a sustainable society ... and the `American Dream' as it has unfortunately been termed is anything but ideal or sustainable!
All this being said, here's a different (but compatible) take. The type of ceremonial found in Freemasonry (speaking in terms of co-masonry, of course, and not the genderized holdouts) ... plus the scientific recognition of the moon's effects upon our subtle anatomy (emotions, mind, and ease of approach to Divinity), have been suggested as forming part of the practical aspects of a New World Religion. To know that we may set our personal interests (diverse as we may otherwise be) aside, and embrace a certain order & ritual on a large scale in our recognition of and approach to G-d (specifically during Full Moon Festivals)... would allow for a much more constructive result than the piecemeal efforts found today - by many differing religious groups, denominations, sects and flavors - even as these may variously claim to honor the same ultimate Deity (or Highest, Belevolent) Power.
What does it matter our differing terminologies if we can at least agree that a different & united approach is needed - this being one that has room in it for all practitioners the world over, no matter what the choice of practice! And would this approach not also need to make room for those who prefer no practice at all, without penalty of any sort or the kind of shunning that happens in the smallest of communities as well as the largest? Or would we rather argue with Teachers like the Christ who advised us that we must love not only those who are close to us (anyone can do this!), but even our very enemies - those whom we most despise. Have you hugged a terrorist today?
Buddha said it, Krishna certainly said it, and I think Mohammad said it, but we don't even have to look to the past for great religious leaders who have emphasized the message to Love our Neighbor & our Enemy ... because HH the Dalai Lama has said it, Dr. MLK, Jr has said it, and Gandhi has said it. Some (me among them) even believe that just 75 years or so ago, the very same Christ Who appeared 2 millennia ago as Christ Jesus, made a similar, experimental effort to return (outwardly) to Humanity ... though this proved a learning experience for all involved, and was not fully successful. This was but an early effort, and many forerunners have now helped to prepare the way for the Coming One, such that the Aquarian `John the Baptizer' has already been on the scene.
Bahais believe that Christ has come, and certainly there is enough evidence to prove that the same Spirit which was in Christ Jesus, is also in the world today ... although there may be those who aren't satisfied that a physical manifestation (through a single individual) has again taken place. If not, we have every reason to look forward to that event, but esotericists believe (and with good reason - evidence to boot) that Christ has already spoken to the world - and shown that He is with us - through the work of many, many of His disciples. Ironically, it is most religious thinkers outside of Christianity who find this idea acceptable and even obvious, while those claiming Christ as their inspiration & authority are often the most reluctant to consider that His mission embraces all of Humanity, and not a select, chosen few. Old ideas die hard, and those who cling - suffer.
One World Religion does not insist that we must pray 5 times daily, or in English, or to a masculine deity, or even that we must pray at all. And as the Spirit of Ecumenism presses forward, only by recognizing the volunteers from all existing world religious traditions will a group of spiritual leaders be taken seriously as they draw up a charter for this effort. The point is not to sit down and start talking armchair philosophy, splitting hairs about angels dancing on pinheads and whitey up in the sky making rocks so heavy only he can lift them .... that sort of thing is good for the coffee-shop. In 1893, and again in 1993, the Parliament of World Religions (wiki'd here) set excellent precedents & laid foundation-stones for just the sort of thing we need.
Let's construct the Temple as G-d surely intends it (and I do mean intends - active, alive & well ... in the world today - having never left it, and not up there in the sky somewhere). Each of us has, or rather is, an unhewn ashlar. Like the artist said, all I have to do is carve away the bits of stone that don't look like the image in my mind (or words to that effect). What remains, is this thing you're gawking at.
Also, (since I ramble so much) ... full moon festivals have nothing to do with the moon, except that it's on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun at that time. Hmmmm.
Cheers,
andrew
.Popeyesays said:
Bandit said:yah scott.
pluuuus, once a world religion goes into action, (which will inevitably rule), no new thoughts or beliefs on things will ever be allowed, unless the leader(s) of the world religion decide to change it. history! history! not a good idea.IMO
when i think it all the way through, i like freedom of religion/beliefs better.