[Lord Dave]

So what's the reason for the big change?

Maybe he wanted a fresh start, only to realize that everyone would know who he was from his writing style.

George obviously isn't that bright, since I freely ADMITTED who I was upstream. I never attempted to hide the fact that I was Ya'akov. I would strongly suggest that you grow up and get a life. As for Roundy, I think a similar thing applies. A person IS allowed to make changes in their life. Some Christians become other than, some Jews become other than. I am the latter. It is my right. That doesn't mean I am a different person, it just means my choices are a bit different. Grow up, man.

It kinda does make you a different person.  Different choices, especially life consuming faith changes.

[Roundy]

George obviously isn't that bright, since I freely ADMITTED who I was upstream. I never attempted to hide the fact that I was Ya'akov. I would strongly suggest that you grow up and get a life. As for Roundy, I think a similar thing applies. A person IS allowed to make changes in their life. Some Christians become other than, some Jews become other than. I am the latter. It is my right. That doesn't mean I am a different person, it just means my choices are a bit different. Grow up, man.

You're right, there's nothing wrong with making changes to your life.  I suggest Hindu next.  Abrahamic is great and all but why not go for a little real variety?

[Martin Luther II]

George obviously isn't that bright, since I freely ADMITTED who I was upstream. I never attempted to hide the fact that I was Ya'akov. I would strongly suggest that you grow up and get a life. As for Roundy, I think a similar thing applies. A person IS allowed to make changes in their life. Some Christians become other than, some Jews become other than. I am the latter. It is my right. That doesn't mean I am a different person, it just means my choices are a bit different. Grow up, man.

  That was funny!
You're right, there's nothing wrong with making changes to your life.  I suggest Hindu next.  Abrahamic is great and all but why not go for a little real variety?

[Martin Luther II]

OSCAR, fair enough points you make. Not so much a teenage symptom. A symptom of what is in many ways a man who was very confused for much of his life, an alcoholic (now in recovery), a mental patient (now being treated properly for that), a serious medical patient (also being treated), and a lot of other things. But there is more to it than that. So, I don't have time to get to it now, but perhaps later, I shall be able to write a longer post, and explain in more detail to you.

[Roundy]

OSCAR, fair enough points you make. Not so much a teenage symptom. A symptom of what is in many ways a man who was very confused for much of his life, an alcoholic (now in recovery), a mental patient (now being treated properly for that), a serious medical patient (also being treated), and a lot of other things. But there is more to it than that. So, I don't have time to get to it now, but perhaps later, I shall be able to write a longer post, and explain in more detail to you.

I'm sure it's a very entertaining story.

[Martin Luther II]

Oscar said:

I'd very much like to see someone try to flog the "Orange Catholic Bible" on the streets of Belfast.

In fact, Frank Herbert is said to have had JUST that very issue in mind when he named the text that. Dune was written in 1965, when issues were already heating up in Northern Ireland, and would break out into the Troubles in 1969. It is said in Dune-lore that he suspected this would occur, and entitled the Scripture that, in order to show the stupidity of sectarian violence.

Yet at the same time his books cover the whole concept of a Jihad that kills 60 billion people in the name OF the Orange Catholic Bible. So, mystery upon mystery.

[xasop]

I voted for the first option, since denominations do seem to proliferate much more frequently than they die out. That said, I doubt it will lead to much conflict, with the ever-increasing separation between church and state in the Western world.

As an atheist, I also hope that is the case. I honestly don't care what people believe or what internal conflicts religions have, so long as they keep it out of state politics that affect me.

[Martin Luther II]

I voted for the first option, since denominations do seem to proliferate much more frequently than they die out. That said, I doubt it will lead to much conflict, with the ever-increasing separation between church and state in the Western world.

That is a very interesting choice. However, I wonder at your questioning of whether it will lead to conflict. The West is not the problem. Atheism is in fact increasing in the West, and Religion itself is learning to deal with itself. Its the NON-Western world, that has most of the people in it, where that is NOT the case, and where most of the violence occurs. Ergo, it appears to me that the violence would INcrease.

As an atheist, I also hope that is the case. I honestly don't care what people believe or what internal conflicts religions have, so long as they keep it out of state politics that affect me.

Of course, I can't argue with a personal desire or hope, and to do so would be stupid. So as to that, knock yourself out.

[xasop]

That is a very interesting choice. However, I wonder at your questioning of whether it will lead to conflict. The West is not the problem. Atheism is in fact increasing in the West, and Religion itself is learning to deal with itself. Its the NON-Western world, that has most of the people in it, where that is NOT the case, and where most of the violence occurs. Ergo, it appears to me that the violence would INcrease.

It's hard to imagine religiously-motivated violence in the non-Western world getting much worse than it already is. So in that context, I would imagine things would stay as they are until such time as those countries adopt secular governments that give everyone equal freedom to practice their religion. Those that do not will continue to tear themselves apart, since one religious group will always feel oppressed by another.

The main spanner in the works here is religions which overstep their bounds and try to apply their own rules to non-believers, because such religions are fundamentally incompatible with freedom of religion. In a modern context, that is mainly Islam, albeit perhaps only some interpretations of Islam -- I am still learning about the subject. Since such religions actually want to dictate laws, they are better classified as political ideologies than religions, and should not be considered part of the scope of any policy of freedom of religion.

So, given that there exist religions which cannot exist where freedom of religion does, and if we assume that freedom of religion is required to eliminate religiously-motivated violence, then there will continue to be such violence until some of the world's religions disappear. I don't think that the alternative of adopting one true scripture and eliminating the need for freedom of religion is even remotely within the realm of possibility. Even if one religion became the dominant one globally and began dictating legislation for others to follow, there would still be groups of dissidents following other religions.

[Martin Luther II]

That is a very interesting choice. However, I wonder at your questioning of whether it will lead to conflict. The West is not the problem. Atheism is in fact increasing in the West, and Religion itself is learning to deal with itself. Its the NON-Western world, that has most of the people in it, where that is NOT the case, and where most of the violence occurs. Ergo, it appears to me that the violence would INcrease.

It's hard to imagine religiously-motivated violence in the non-Western world getting much worse than it already is. So in that context, I would imagine things would stay as they are until such time as those countries adopt secular governments that give everyone equal freedom to practice their religion. Those that do not will continue to tear themselves apart, since one religious group will always feel oppressed by another.

The main spanner in the works here is religions which overstep their bounds and try to apply their own rules to non-believers, because such religions are fundamentally incompatible with freedom of religion. In a modern context, that is mainly Islam, albeit perhaps only some interpretations of Islam -- I am still learning about the subject. Since such religions actually want to dictate laws, they are better classified as political ideologies than religions, and should not be considered part of the scope of any policy of freedom of religion.

As much as I don't deny despising Islam, I have to admit they are NOT the only ones doing dirty work. The Buddhists are playing some filthy games in Myanmar (Burma) against the Muslim Rohingya People. Christians in the Central African Republic are forcing Muslims to become Christian under penalty of torture and death. In India, Hinduism does have an element of nationalistic fervor that can get rather nasty under certain circumstances, against the Muslim minority.

So, given that there exist religions which cannot exist where freedom of religion does, and if we assume that freedom of religion is required to eliminate religiously-motivated violence, then there will continue to be such violence until some of the world's religions disappear. I don't think that the alternative of adopting one true scripture and eliminating the need for freedom of religion is even remotely within the realm of possibility. Even if one religion became the dominant one globally and began dictating legislation for others to follow, there would still be groups of dissidents following other religions.

You might have a valid point here. I am not exactly sure what sort of things would have to occur before mankind was ready for a religiously unified world. Possibly religious exhaustion? Exhaustion with endless Holy War/Jihad? I am not sure.

[xasop]

As much as I don't deny despising Islam, I have to admit they are NOT the only ones doing dirty work. The Buddhists are playing some filthy games in Myanmar (Burma) against the Muslim Rohingya People. Christians in the Central African Republic are forcing Muslims to become Christian under penalty of torture and death. In India, Hinduism does have an element of nationalistic fervor that can get rather nasty under certain circumstances, against the Muslim minority.

Oh, I'm sure all religions are doing (or have done) terrible things. The distinction I was drawing is that most religions are capable of peaceful coexistence, even if they don't always do that. Religions which assert rules that apply to non-believers do not have that capacity, as their followers will always try to control those of other religions.

You might have a valid point here. I am not exactly sure what sort of things would have to occur before mankind was ready for a religiously unified world. Possibly religious exhaustion? Exhaustion with endless Holy War/Jihad? I am not sure.

I don't think any possible change could prepare mankind for that, short of a drastic reduction in population (to a few thousand at most). Expecting billions of people to all accept the same holy text, let alone the same religion, simply isn't realistic. Furthermore, it is antithetical to freedom of religion; new denominations (and occasionally religions, like Mormonism and Scientology) crop up all the time even today. To have one true global religion, you would need to ban that from happening.

That says nothing of cultural differences which will influence the religious moral codes deemed acceptable by different groups of people. To homogenise world religion, you must first homogenise world culture. There have been many attempts to achieve that on some scale over the years -- the Roman Empire, British colonialism, and the Nazi regime, to name a few -- and all have failed. Quite apart from it being an immoral cause in the first place, people simply fight back when you try to take their culture away.

A much more realistic goal is to have different religions coexisting peacefully, with mutual respect. At least that has been accomplished in some countries already.