One Government, One Official Language, One Official Religion. Is It Possible?

[lunamoth]

Hi Faustus, not sure if that was directed to me ot not, but I am not a Baha'i. I was a Baha'i for five years so I know a bit about it, plus I recognized silverbackman's OP as quite similar to the Baha'i beliefs. The quote 'the earth is but one county and mankind it's citizens' is attributed to Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith and, Baha'i's believe, the fulfillment of all the religions' Messianic expectations, including Judaism's. So, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; I remain curious about what other people think about the Baha'i Faith.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Faustus]

Nah, it wasn't directed at you in particular, more the general idea that first, every religion will suddenly fall into line with some big, worldwide religion (which everyone here seems to assume will be monotheistic, incidentally, and I think there are a few polytheists who wouldn't really be down with that). I guess I just find it a little disturbing and arrogant- maybe because I personally have had people tell me in rather condescending fashion, "Oh, well, you think you're Jewish now, but don't worry, you'll see the truth and be Saved!" So maybe that's why it rubs the wrong way- I can't speak for anyone else, but my religion isn't some fad that I picked up from Cosmo and will change just because someone decides that everyone should be unified in religion. Just the thought makes me shudder a bit- a unified language and government I can see, but a world religion? No. Treading too close to the thought police there, I think.

I don't know all that much about Ba'hai, but what I have read about it has impressed me quite a bit. There was a Ba'hai group on my university campus, and I was always impressed by their distinct lack of proselytizing (unlike the Baptist Student Ministry, for instance, who stalked me for weeks because I made the mistake of attending a barbecue with a Baptist friend), inclusiveness and generally laid-back attitude toward differing opinions regarding religion. I can definitely see the appeal there.

 

[taijasi]

I think the example of the Baha'i's is an excellent one, and yes, I'm more or less familiar (though not particularly knowledgeable) with their beliefs. While I do not agree that Baha'u'llah was the Christ, I would consider the teachings provided as vital in helping to establish One World Government & Religion.

Certainly I think the process has begun, and I remain optimistic that we will accomplish the goal ... but it may yet be several decades before a World Council comes into power, as reflected already in the Baha'i model, the Universal House of Justice. My own belief is that it will likely be the United Nations, which was formed with the ideal in mind of a World Governing Body (based on the earlier efforts, and as a natural outgrowth of, the League of Nations). In the very least, a World Council would draw from the UN, or be a reformulation thereof.

The acceptance by the world of the Reappearance of a Messiah-figure, Bodhisattva, Christ-figure, World Teacher, Imam Mahdi, Saoshyant, and Kalki Avatara ... is something which I don't think we'll have to continue to question. Once this Reappearance, which I personally believe is about 2/3 accomplished already, has begun its final stage (within two decades), such a figure, and the results of His Presence in the world (which He never actualy left) ... will be undeniable. It will no longer be necessary to question or speculate, because we will all know as objective fact that there has been such "return" (Reappearance). Individuals will remain free to deny or reject, even as groups (as has already occurred) ... for no once will be coerced.

Prophecies indicate that "every eye shall see Him," and "all kindred of the earth" will behold, and given the global communications now well established (news media, Internet, TV, satellite, etc.) ... how can we question this? Do intelligent people really believe that the Christ and His Church (substitute your words for the `Coming One' here) would not take adavantage of such means to reach Humanity? I have to just throw up my hands sometimes when I see that people apparently believe that Christ, and God's Kingdom, remains unchanged - while yet everything under the sun is in constant change. People looking for the Messiah of 4200 years ago, or the Biblical Christ of 2100 years ago, will be disappointed. That is my sincere conviction.

It's a paradox and a conundrum. When you think about the many pet notions that we all think Christ (Messiah, the Bodhisattva, etc.) is coming to fulfill, then the impossible figure that we have created is shown in the light of day. It is absurd to think that somehow everyone is magically right. Even 2100 years ago, there were those who expected a military leader, and those who demanded a king to overthrow Rome. Christ did neither, and he was largely rejected by the very people to whom He came! The bottom line is, we all have our various expectations, and even the wisest among us has a difficult time entering an intimate relationship with another human ... and not seeing such expectations and superimposed ideal(ism) dashed against the rocks. Do we really think our understanding of the `Son of God,' the Divine Emissary ... is better than our understanding of each other?

And thus I'm not surprised that people lose faith, or retreat into believing in childish miracles, since these represent the extremes of doubt and confusion. So the flip side of the conundrum is that if Christ exists (again, substitute your own vision of the Promised One) ... what will the return be like? And I think people who continue to expect some kind of night/day difference, will be disappointed. Because I remain convinced (and with good reason) that Christ is a World Savior, and comes to show us all the next stage(s) in Human (Spiritual) Evolution. That this will gradually yet inevitably necessitate the embracing of One World Religion is quite clear, but are the followers of the world's major religions mature enough, and intelligent enough, to handle it? That remains to be seen. After all, people still argue over which toothpaste is better, and how to hang a picture, or where to put furniture.

C'mon, the least we need to do is show that we believe in Right Human Relations ... but I think the exchange on this thread already demonstrates that even with differing perspectives & backgrounds, that much is coming along well. No less than all of Humanity is implicated, and it seems to me, that if 20% would kick in and help make this thing happen, then that's a heckuva lot better than 10%. Perhaps it will save lives, reduce suffering, and get us that much quicker to the sustainable world society which has always been intended.

andrew

 

[Silverbackman]

Hey people!

About the one religion issue, think of it like this. Most religions no matter how strong our faith is, is nothing more than a superstition of old. If we someone claimed something supernatural happened (like God is literally talking to them or that some demons are in them) we would think they are insane. Someone that very quickly comes to mind is the lady her drowned her kids (7 I think it was) because she said God told her to. In this modern society we do now tend to pay more attentions to natural explanations than supernatural explanations with mythical origins.

In other words a religion similar to pantheism would benefit man as a whole because let's be serious people, there is no such thing as the supernatural. And most religions have their origins that correspond to their culture and perhaps shouldn't be spread. So I don't see a new official religion heavily based on science and perhaps pantheist as a bad thing. Let's be honest here guys! We all know religions like Christianity and Islam are myths. Myths in the sense that they may have some historical basis and may teach some great ethic systems but that is all they are. There is no more validity in the Bible than there is in the Iliad or the Ramayana God did not come down from heaven and create laws. That is all superstitious and a primitive way of thinking.

Okay, if I offended anyone (especially Abrahamics) I apologize but let's be real! You’re free to practice what you want but it doesn't mean it's real.

As for English being the universal language, it seems easy enough for an American like me who only knows English (and a little Japanese and Spanish) but in my opinion it would be a nightmare! English does not deserve to be the universal language simply because it is a flawed language! There are too many exceptions to the rules and spelling in the language sucks (many words don't sound how they should sound).

I think we should create a new language based on the vocabulary and grammar of the most widely spoken languages in the world (Mandarin Chinese, English, Hindi, Spanish, Arabic, ect.). This way we have a more intercultural national language which all people can find origins in.

 

[taijasi]

Easily one could spin this thread into a dozen lesser threads, but such is the challenge of synthesis - and you did start with the notion of what Unity looks like in terms of a sustainable society, with focus on language, government, and religion. I think that's ambitious ... but wonderful to pursue.

As for language, I still vote English, and here's why. The English which I think will probably emerge triumphant, will not be the admittedly lacking language of today. English is becoming increasingly technical, and is already drawing heavily from the other tongues you mention, Silverbackman. Our roots are Latin, and ethnologists will recognize that Latin has for its roots, Sanskrit. And I believe that the ancient sacerdotal tongue of the Hindus continues to nourish the as-yet-inadequate ... English.

For my own spiritual understanding, with a good amount of background in Theosophical and Hindu teachings ... I credit Sanskrit, linguistically speaking. When one tries to consider the various planes, states, and types of consciousness, English becomes altogether inadequate. Yet the Rishis of many thousands of years ago, were able to dictate and discuss the Vedas, precisely because their Sanskrit language incorporated enough subtlety and technical terminology ... to meet the need. English, I think, though as yet an infant language in comparison, will likely follow suit, though rising in time to a much higher turn of the spiral.

As for the mythology of the Bible, and its role in Abrahamic religions, I couldn't be offended in the least ... but then, my beliefs are altogether unconventional, even (if not especially) where Christ, eschatology, and soteriology, are concerned. But something I do believe in, which even gives most Christians a run for their money, is the existence of the Masters ... who form the `Church' part of Christ and His Church. As such, and again based on sincere conviction, I reject all miracles in the sense of truly supernatural events (technically breaking the laws of nature) ... but I would admit of the following: Were a Master to need to do so, I take it as a given that he could materialize (from a subtler state, and world of being) directly in front of your eyes. It might not be wise, either for the shock that would result to you, the dramatically increased vibration (which also might kill you), and most importantly for the obvious waste of a tremendous amount of spiritual energy - required to do so. But I am as convinced that this kind of thing happens more than we might realize ... as I am of my own existence.

This deviates from the subject of the thread a bit, but if such beings actually exist ... then as many people have asked - why haven't they long ago popped in and simply established the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth for us? Indeed, why did not the Christ (do so)? And we all know the typical answer, because God wants us to accept his gift (literalized in the form of Jesus of Nazareth) of our own accord. I do agree with the Christian sentiment, for I think the basic idea is correct. In short, we have the power to choose - which thinkers accord the term `Free Will.' And sadly, Humanity as yet would rather rebel and experiment with disaster (just how far can we take it, the leaders of nations, and defense contractors seem to be asking). But the "10%" I keep referring to ... includes a considerable number who are aware of the Christ and His Church - many from firsthand experience, and who recognize all such outer displays of "magic" for what they are ... evidence not of miracles, but of the Divine Potential within us all.

If one prefers to reduce all of this to Humanism, and yet can accept that there is a potential for Good within us, then perhaps the Star Trek model is more useful. For undeniably we have our struggles and imperfections, our religious (and political) differences, our varying backgrounds, worldviews, and belief systems. But our strength is that these can be overcome and a Greater Ideal sensed and worked for ... while the world of spiritual realities (for some) can yet still be discussed, and together explored, by those who have the patience and interest.

Om Tat Sat,

andrew

 

[Faustus]

In other words a religion similar to pantheism would benefit man as a whole because let's be serious people, there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Then why in the world would you need a religion at all? Frankly, it sounds like people saying, "Well, we need something to... erm... believe in and... uh... make people moral, so... yeah. World religion." I keep asking why some universal religion would be necessary in the slightest, and I don't feel like I'm getting very clear answers (or maybe I'm not understanding the answers I'm getting, I don't know). So I'll ask again: why exactly do we need any religion at all? Talking about humanism, most of the secular humanists I know don't consider it a religion, they consider it a philosophy. And at the end of the day, to me, saying, "We're having an official religion for the whole world" still smacks of, "This is what you should believe, and those who don't are mistaken/less intelligent/thinking primitively." Who wouldn't find that attitude incredibly arrogant and offensive?

Let's be honest here guys! We all know religions like Christianity and Islam are myths. Myths in the sense that they may have some historical basis and may teach some great ethic systems but that is all they are. There is no more validity in the Bible than there is in the Iliad or the Ramayana God did not come down from heaven and create laws. That is all superstitious and a primitive way of thinking.

Jeez, way to just dismiss the beliefs of millions of people, there, dude. This paragraph sums up exactly why I would never, ever want someone else calling the shots on my religious beliefs- just because you don't believe it doesn't automatically invalidate the whole religion and mean that those who choose to believe in it are "thinking primitively." How completely offensive and condescending. And I'm not even someone who follows a particularly literal interpretation of the Bible- I can only imagine how I would feel if I were, say, an evangelical Christian reading that. Yeesh.

Don't dismiss my belief system as "primitive thinking." Sorry, but you don't get to make that call- and you certainly don't get to decide that because you don't believe it, it would be better to have some nebulous, randomly-created, world religion. Not that it really matters, since none of us are going to be in a position to enforce something like that, anyway, but statements like the above are exactly why I take issue with it. For one thing, being religious doesn't preclude being capable of logical, scientific thought processes. For another, one world religion that everyone is expected to believe is way, way to easy for some person (or people) with... less wholesome values to manipulate to their advantage. Thanks muchly, but you can keep your world religion. I know what I believe, and I don't think I really need the one-world government explaining it to me.

But really, this boils down to my one, big question: why, exactly, would we ever need some one-world, all-encompassing religion? I'm still not getting that one.

 

[MagnetMan]

"The concept of an egalitarian global society stewarding the home planet as a single family estate is not a Utopian pipe dream, its an evolutionary imperative." That quote stems fro Psyche-Genetics and I thouroughly subscribe to it.

The pressures of expanding polulations impacting on regional enviroments have sequentially forced us into four distinct Age cjhanges to date - each with its own new social occupational constract and spiritual belief system. Before each new consciousness could take root and prosper all the Old Age's sacred totems and icons had be burned or buried in museums. What has been carried forward from one Age change to the next, are funadmental ethical values. When we left off hunting and gathering in the Stone Age, we took forward the basic family value of meticulous sharing and the caring for elders - together with a superstitious belief in the Universal Soul. At the end of the Bronze Age, when a purely farm-based economy could no longer sustain population expansions, we graduated into an Iron Age of industrial craftsmanship - and we brought with us both family and exstended family values - an abgricultural, chore-based work ethic, the courage to face lions with nothing but a spear, as well as the shamanistic conscept of mediumship between the living and dead ancestors. In a national milieu a rigid scripture, emphasising ethical behavour, had to develope, side by side with conscientious crafstmanship. We took those two Iron Age ethics, togther with the earlier ones from the Stone and Bronze, into the Steel Age. That began when Aristotle challenged rigid scriptural dogma and set the stage for the world we live in today --to wit; Religious protestation and scientific determinsm. A hundred generations later, we again face exponential poplation pressures impacting adversely - this time on the whole global enviroment - and we consequently face another mass change of consciousness. Age changes have never been easy. From the Bronze Age onwards they have always been intiated by massive voilent resistence. This time we cannot afford voilence - not with the weapons we have today. The only way we are going to accomplish the change peacefully is via a thorough understanding of the comonalty of our family, clan, national and internations developmental stages. When we consider the fact that our evolution of consciousness has been onb-going for almost 100,000 generations, all the differences we see today, originated comparitively seconds ago and are merely skin deep. At heart we are all a single family sharing identical social and spiritual values - by whatever pseudo-intellectual name we care to call them at the moment. The Syteel Age is redundant. Our cities are falling apart, urban sprawl is pandemic, every intitutionwe have cannot cope with globalization. We have to begin with a whole new approach to education and go forward from there - viewing the planet as a single estate, requiring the full employement of every mother's son to get it spinning right. In addition we have to have a clear vision of our future. We have to look forward, beyond the Nuclear Age, and see the Ages of Mastership and Sagehood that lie ahead of us - and the common destination of Cosmic reunion that we will all experience one day - when our evolution completes its cycle.

 

[Quahom1]

"The concept of an egalitarian global society stewarding the home planet as a single family estate is not a Utopian pipe dream, its an evolutionary imperative." That quote stems fro Psyche-Genetics and I thouroughly subscribe to it...

Based on the fact that "man" must evolve with nature? There is a difference between man and nature...namely free will. Man can go against nature. That is a factor that is often ignored by "naturalists". And if the majority of man ignores a concept...it doesn't happen (to the detriment or benefit of human kind).

Also, man in the last 10,000 years hasn't really agreed with nature. Nature on the other hand does not care whether man survives or not, and man does not care what nature does.

Ultimately it is a temporary standoff. Nature is powerful, but Man is deadly, not only to man but to nature as well. Man harnesses nature on a daily basis. Man can also crack this ball that we live on in two, and nature has no say in the matter.

Better concentrate on man, rather than nature...hugging trees won't save the world, hugging "man" might...

v/r

Q

 

[MagnetMan]

Based on the fact that "man" must evolve with nature? There is a difference between man and nature...namely free will. Man can go against nature. That is a factor that is often ignored by "naturalists". And if the majority of man ignores a concept...it doesn't happen (to the detriment or benefit of human kind).

Also, man in the last 10,000 years hasn't really agreed with nature. Nature on the other hand does not care whether man survives or not, and man does not care what nature does.

Ultimately it is a temporary standoff. Nature is powerful, but Man is deadly, not only to man but to nature as well. Man harnesses nature on a daily basis. Man can also crack this ball that we live on in two, and nature has no say in the matter.

Better concentrate on man, rather than nature...hugging trees won't save the world, hugging "man" might...

v/r

Q

All very true. But we are not apart from Nature. We are an expression of Her, the most deadly to be sure, but also the most creative. And without question, charged with enormous responsibilities. Hugging trees might not save the world, but it certainly shows our love and respect for the very force that helped us evolve. Care and respect for Mother Nature puts all her awesome forces on our side and we can do with all the help we can get. I disagree that She does not care about us. We did not suck our consciousness out of a vacuum - that germ of 'self' has to be an integral attrubute of the primal atom. What makes us assume that the gases and liquids and minerals that constitute our human consciousness, is the only form of atomic awareness on the planet?

 

[Quahom1]

All very true. But we are not apart from Nature. We are an expression of Her, the most deadly to be sure, but also the most creative. And without question, charged with enormous responsibilities. Hugging trees might not save the world, but it certainly shows our love and respect for the very force that helped us evolve. Care and respect for Mother Nature puts all her awesome forces on our side and we can do with all the help we can get. I disagree that She does not care about us. We did not suck our consciousness out of a vacuum - that germ of 'self' has to be an integral attrubute of the primal atom. What makes us assume that the gases and liquids and minerals that constitute our human consciousness, is the only form of atomic awareness on the planet?

Perhaps due to the fact that it has never replicated itself...? ever?

Let's face it, hate us or love us, we are it. We decide the fate of the planet, ultimately. Why? because we run the roost. Nature works with us, or deals with us, but ultimately we keep this planet running or we destroy it.

That is the ultimate issue. And man has the ulitmate answer. Nature is just not strong enough to beat us, nor is any other force on the planet. Man decides. That is now the battle, in our court.

We hold the key to blow this planet to kingdom come, much quicker than any natural event...

...and yes I am playing devils' advocate. But it is a viable advocation...

v/r

Q

 

[Silverbackman]

Then why in the world would you need a religion at all? Frankly, it sounds like people saying, "Well, we need something to... erm... believe in and... uh... make people moral, so... yeah. World religion." I keep asking why some universal religion would be necessary in the slightest, and I don't feel like I'm getting very clear answers (or maybe I'm not understanding the answers I'm getting, I don't know). So I'll ask again: why exactly do we need any religion at all? Talking about humanism, most of the secular humanists I know don't consider it a religion, they consider it a philosophy. And at the end of the day, to me, saying, "We're having an official religion for the whole world" still smacks of, "This is what you should believe, and those who don't are mistaken/less intelligent/thinking primitively." Who wouldn't find that attitude incredibly arrogant and offensive?



Jeez, way to just dismiss the beliefs of millions of people, there, dude. This paragraph sums up exactly why I would never, ever want someone else calling the shots on my religious beliefs- just because you don't believe it doesn't automatically invalidate the whole religion and mean that those who choose to believe in it are "thinking primitively." How completely offensive and condescending. And I'm not even someone who follows a particularly literal interpretation of the Bible- I can only imagine how I would feel if I were, say, an evangelical Christian reading that. Yeesh.

Don't dismiss my belief system as "primitive thinking." Sorry, but you don't get to make that call- and you certainly don't get to decide that because you don't believe it, it would be better to have some nebulous, randomly-created, world religion. Not that it really matters, since none of us are going to be in a position to enforce something like that, anyway, but statements like the above are exactly why I take issue with it. For one thing, being religious doesn't preclude being capable of logical, scientific thought processes. For another, one world religion that everyone is expected to believe is way, way to easy for some person (or people) with... less wholesome values to manipulate to their advantage. Thanks muchly, but you can keep your world religion. I know what I believe, and I don't think I really need the one-world government explaining it to me.

But really, this boils down to my one, big question: why, exactly, would we ever need some one-world, all-encompassing religion? I'm still not getting that one.

Sorry if it offends. A few months ago I would have maybe agreed with you but it was stupid logic I followed. Just because millions and billions of people practice something doesn't mean it is true. We all know that the Abrahamic religions contradict science in all ways imaginable. Ask a modern to Abrahamic and they will tell you that know matter what science and natural explanations there are they will always remain faithful. Sure, you can believe the sky is purple and that demons five people diseases but we live in a scientific world whether we like it or not. In a court of law for example someone who talks about their religious beliefs too much makes many people think your insane. These religions are like any other religions, created by each culture to understand the world around them and to give their lives meaning. But we have passed that way of thinking. Now we know there are ways to understand the world we live in that is through science. We can't have our global religion based on some superstitious cultural beliefs.

Let's be serious here. The Bible is a compilation of many books. The OT is actually the original Jewish Bible. The new testament was compiled by a bunch of Constantine's men. All these are books created by men. There is nothing more to it. You can't say these books are any more from God than the Illiad or the Odin mythological literature. We have to be real here. The Jews are a people like any other person. They have their own culural beliefs but that is really al they are. If God gave Moses the 10 Cs, then perhaps this world was created by Zeus as well. This quote will make you understand I hope;

“Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants.”

But One world religion is the most necessary because like I said before we can easily have a secular world federation. But I think it will do mankind a favor if we have one global institution that at least helps people in their quest for the truth.

 

[taijasi]

Hmmm ... but Silverbackman ... how can you just dismiss, with one fell swoop, all that has emerged in the religious arena of Human history, which now stands on firm ground before you - in whatever persona you wish to clothe it, demanding recognition?

Yes, it may seem silly or childish - much of it - and admittedly, for me, the anthropomorphisms still provide a considerable challenge. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Science is not the new God, even if this is essentially the role it has fulfilled in the minds of the intellectual masses. One does not need to be a religious zealot, or the devotee type, or even really believe in organized religion ... in order to see that science is a piece of the puzzle, NOT the whole hog.

One of the newcomers to CR, soulatom - has been posting some things you might find interesting. And I find it highly worth considering, that many, many of science's greatest thinkers ... are also very spiritual people, whether in the religious sense, or perhaps in a less conventional sense - in many cases. Either way, those who really "have it together," as I see it, are the ones who have learned that their discipline, is one just like every other (the social sciences, religion & spirituality, the business world, the political arena, the performing & creative arts). If you don't think that each of these disciplines (an interesting word unto itself) offers us a slightly different but equally useful method of beholding the world we live in (and thereby, ultimate reality) ... think again.

No man is an island, and just as we are all interconnected and interrelated, so also are all areas of human endeavor linked!!! The threads that bind may be too subtle to see with the naked eye, but if you will think for a moment about the very existence of the "WEB" itself, as many still call it ... this may begin to become clear. Try to intuit that the web of existence - cannot be rent or torn. It can only be more or less illumined, and the gossamer-thin strands can sometimes stretch for what seems in our own, tiny lives ... to be a long, long way - from their common Heart.

But it is all nodes and nexuses - and all we need ask is how far till the next crossing ... not is there another intersection. Only illusion, and maya, paint the picture of separativeness. You need not be religious, you only need to study quantum physics ... and familiarize yourself with unified field theory, if you prefer the scientific approach.

And for what it's worth, all those creation myths, and flood myths, and parables and lessons that show up universally in the world's various religious teachings, are but strands in the web ... with many, many intersections, and a common pattern, right down to the track record of successes and failures. I'm rather cynical myself, actually ... but your thread on Common Government, Religion, and Language is probably one of the most important, imo, that I've ever seen on CR.

I botched a long post on esoteric world history ... after seeing the post you just made - and this one seems more on topic. I hope it makes some sense. I just don't see how "one world religion" could possibly exist, according to the terms you're suggesting, and with complete disregard for existing belief systems that millions upon millions in the world currently still embrace. I do believe in transformation ... in a gradual, very gradual and gentle - yet inevitable - coming together. And not a false unity, or one that simply respects but patronizes, or ignores the Rich Diversity of beliefs and traditions that obviously exists.

But if I can be shown that even as deep as I have been able to take my faith and relationship with the Divine ... there is yet, a deeper bedrock that "stands under" my current angle on things ... then maybe I will one day learn that that Rock is actually the one of which all the world is built. And thus I don't have to be a Buddhist, or a Christian, etc. ... to stand upon it. I just have to believe in the process of erecting the Divine Temple upon it, and be willing to accept cooperation as the crowing virtue - required of all who would help build. The rest - comes along the way ...

Peace,

andrew

 

[MagnetMan]

That is the ultimate issue. And man has the ulitmate answer. Nature is just not strong enough to beat us, nor is any other force on the planet. Man decides. That is now the battle, in our court.

We hold the key to blow this planet to kingdom come, much quicker than any natural event...

...and yes I am playing devils' advocate. But it is a viable advocation...

I have already agreed with your premise - up to a point, but you have yet to say yes or nay to mine - and if nay - why?. You keep refering to man as a being that is above or beyond Nature - without acknowledging that we are just one of 3 billion of Her other incredible creations, not one of which can man ever duplicate from scratch. You assume that we rose to our high elevation by pulling ourselves up without help and without design and without purpose. Yes, man is a potentiaslly destructive beast with the power to pollute our entire solar sphere - but our power ends there. Man does not have the ultimate answer. If we did tell that to a score of our past ciivilizations that collapsed and disappeared over night. Why? Because of lack of more holistic foresight. And history is about to repeat itself again as we stand on the verge of no fuel for our industry and just an insane button push away from species extinction. And when we are dead and gone Nature will rise again, as She always has, and try to give birth to a better creature than we. Lets face it, we are just a tiny mite on the edge of one of a trillion galaxies. The only way we will ever surf the rest of the Universe is via metaphsyical translocation. That metaphsyical power is the Cosmic gift to every atomic association and it will remain latent in man and will continue to langiush while we strut around thumping our chests like gorillas. Play devil's advocate all you want - buit if you never take the effort to do some right brain exercises and disciover the depth iof your true power. your short span on earth will be wasted.

 

[Faustus]

Sorry if it offends. A few months ago I would have maybe agreed with you but it was stupid logic I followed. Just because millions and billions of people practice something doesn't mean it is true.

And just because some anonymous dude on the internet tells me he thinks I'm stupid for believing XYZ, because he's reached certain conclusions about it, it doesn't mean he's right. You don't even know what I believe, actually, which makes this discussion sort of moot.

I will say, though, that every single point you made regarding Abrahamic belief relies on the assumption that not only do all people practicing Abrahamic religions believe the same things (they don't), they all believe in and practice their religions in the same way (they don't). And my saying that doesn't mean that I'm an idiot who just "doesn't understand" what you're saying, it means that I don't buy into your logic.

I could say, "Here, let me explain what being Saved means, and then maybe you'll understand [and by "understand," I really mean abandon your beliefs and ideas and magically agree with me]," but that would be arrogant and condescending. You might find it hard to believe, but I'm just as capable of critical thought as you are, and I went through my own analysis of religion and belief to get to where I am that was, I suspect, no less thorough than your own. It would be nice if you could at least do me (and others) the courtesy of acknowledging that, rather than assuming that the only reason we aren't totally agreeing with everything you say is because we just don't "understand" (or that we're too stupid/illogical to "get it"). I understand what you're saying- I just don't agree. And as I said earlier, your cheerleading for a world religion assumes that a world religion would embody your beliefs (which you have no grounds for assuming at all). I suspect you'd be taking a different line on this if we were discussing making, say, evangelical Christianity the official world religion.

But One world religion is the most necessary because like I said before we can easily have a secular world federation.

Bolding mine. You just killed your own point- if it's secular, then religion would be completely irrelevent. You can't have a secular anything and then start making dictates regarding religion. At that point, it ceases to be secular (and is put in danger of becoming a theocracy).

 

[truthseeker]

A more secular government gives people the freedom to worship as they please without having to smash it in someone else's face. One Government, okay. One official language, sure. One official religion, hmmm. Unless that religion is human rights. But I say, if the United States was truly a Christian society, I would not be able to express my thoughts as freely as I do. I would be a heretic and maybe burned at the stake for having the gift of spiritual discernment. Should it be a government in which people can worship as they please, so be it. Frankly, I don't appreciate people knocking at my door telling me that I would be saved if I go to their church. If this kind of thing was banned, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. But an environment in which people come at thier own will, say, such a place like CR - well if the concept such as the title of this thread would imply stopping people from coming together in like mind or stop the tv channels from broadcasting religious sermons on Sunday morning, then I'm against it. We should have the freedom to choose just like we should have the freedom to not have to be confronted with something we don't care to deal with.

 

[truthseeker]

By the way, isn't that called The New World Order? Isn't that idea already in effect?

 

[Bandit]

Sorry if it offends. A few months ago I would have maybe agreed with you but it was stupid logic I followed.
But One world religion is the most necessary because like I said before we can easily have a secular world federation. But I think it will do mankind a favor if we have one global institution that at least helps people in their quest for the truth.

silverback, you have been preaching this ever since i can remember. i disagree with all your philosophy on one world religion. i think you have an agenda to OUT certain religions that you dont like & you are not the first to make that known.

 

[Bandit]

And just because some anonymous dude on the internet tells me he thinks I'm stupid for believing XYZ, because he's reached certain conclusions about it, it doesn't mean he's right. You don't even know what I believe, actually, which makes this discussion sort of moot.




Bolding mine. You just killed your own point- if it's secular, then religion would be completely irrelevent. You can't have a secular anything and then start making dictates regarding religion. At that point, it ceases to be secular (and is put in danger of becoming a theocracy).

nice post, Faustus. all the way through.

 

[lunamoth]

Nah, it wasn't directed at you in particular, more the general idea that first, every religion will suddenly fall into line with some big, worldwide religion (which everyone here seems to assume will be monotheistic, incidentally, and I think there are a few polytheists who wouldn't really be down with that). I guess I just find it a little disturbing and arrogant- maybe because I personally have had people tell me in rather condescending fashion, "Oh, well, you think you're Jewish now, but don't worry, you'll see the truth and be Saved!" So maybe that's why it rubs the wrong way- I can't speak for anyone else, but my religion isn't some fad that I picked up from Cosmo and will change just because someone decides that everyone should be unified in religion. Just the thought makes me shudder a bit- a unified language and government I can see, but a world religion? No. Treading too close to the thought police there, I think.

I don't know all that much about Ba'hai, but what I have read about it has impressed me quite a bit. There was a Ba'hai group on my university campus, and I was always impressed by their distinct lack of proselytizing (unlike the Baptist Student Ministry, for instance, who stalked me for weeks because I made the mistake of attending a barbecue with a Baptist friend), inclusiveness and generally laid-back attitude toward differing opinions regarding religion. I can definitely see the appeal there.

thank you for the reply, faustus. i agree with your top paragraph there. a unified religion seems appealing because it would be one less reason for war and strife, and who knows, given enough time we may come to some kind of unity of belief, but any attempt to 'organize' such a religion would be a tragedy and disaster, IMO. to their great credit, baha'is do not see coercion in getting new believers at all as part of the process they also see as inevitable.

i think i see the same thing in the one-religion thing as you: it treads close to the thought police. you can be lots of things and still be part of your nation, you can be lots of things and still speak one language, but when it comes to religion it is your worldview and this affects you right down to your thoughts and actions. it is true even among the very progressive baha'i faith that if you do not accept certain doctrines then you are not a baha'i, or at least not qualified to be part of the baha'i community. no different from other religions.

lunamoth

 

[wil]

I think this thread needed to start with a poll...

-- yes I am willing to give up my belief system and language and use yours, (or whatever the popular vote decides)

-- yes I am willing for the rest of you to conform to my language, my belief system and abide by my societal laws, mores and convention.

-- no I don't think conformity in this nature will ever work



I think truth is, we are all under one G!d now and we just percieve things differently. As far as language and government goes...the US has one language...yet folks with heavy Maine accents and those from the bayou, and those from the inner city, and those from the upper midwest...have difficulties communicating despite they are all using 'english' (versions those in the UK would not recognize)