The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Martin Luther II on July 29, 2016, 02:12:57 AM
-
Go ahead and take this little vote, and then tell me what you think in the comments. Do note that a question regarding Atheism is not included only because by 2050, predictions are that the worldwide percentage of Atheists, while INcreasing in the USA and Europe, will actually DEcrease worldwide, as the Global South simply has more people, and higher childbirth rates than the Global North.
Next point, the Reader may note that the Writer has proposed the poll whilst reading the book titled "Dune" by Frank Hebert. It is followed by five more written by him. Unfortunately he died, and was unable to complete what is widely believed to have been the final, seventh novel. His son and a co-author have been writing squels and prequels to the series, 16 of them as of now, although this Writer has heard on good authority that they are rather awful.
In VERY brief terms, "Dune" is the concept of a man who is taken to be the Mahdi (rather like a Messiah) of a people, and unleashes a Jihad on the Universe. In the book is yet another book discussed called the Orange Catholic Bible, the Official Scripture of the Imperium, also called the Koranjiyana Zenchristian Scriptures, the Accumulated Book, or the Zenchristian Navakoran. As one can see, said book is a blend of most of the major religious texts on earth.
Now "Dune" takes place 185,000 years in the future. But, what DO you all think of the idea? What do people think will happen (vote above), and what do people think of the idea of religions joining or staying separate? If they ever created a book like the Orange Catholic Bible, would such a book have value? Would the use of one world Scripture unite humanity in a good way? Would it be destructive and dangerous? What about unification of religion? Should occur at all? If so, to what degree? If the Orange Catholic Bible were created, should the religions unite and or stay apart and just use the new Scripture?
Please vote, and then comment, and totally answer the questions as completely as possible. Please, be loquacious, be thorough and complete. If you are an Atheist, you are certainly welcome to answer, but keep in mind that given statistics, an understanding of Religion is that it will survive and play an increasing role in our society's future.
-
I actually think that things will get really crazy in terms of "Ecumenism" or Ecumenism. That word is used both with and without quotes in this sentence. What is Ecumenism, and what does it mean in quote marks that makes it different from when it was not.
Ecumenism, in and of itself, is simply the idea of learning about the beliefs and practices of another. Some more of the Liberal Ecumenists would go to the point of incorporating elements of belief and practice of others into their own use so long as those ideas don't contradict their own belief and practice.
"Ecumenism", on the other hand is, the idea that we are obligated to obliterate the differences that exist between us and others believe differently, all sit round a campfire, pretend we are the same, and sing Kum bay ya. Here, you don't really have a Conservative side.
Personally, I am inclined to think that something resembling a World Scripture will almost certainly be created, probably very skillfully. It will find a way to blend the various stories of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and many other religious narratives in such manner that they flow smoothly. It will also find a way to distill the morality of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Analects of Confucius, and others harmonised and forming a smooth, clear edifice for one to observe.
It will be used in services all over the world as an addition to whatever texts are ALREADY being used. It won't REPLACE what is, but it will augment it. The religions will not merge. They will remain separate, but all will use this text and come to understand each other better
Would this be a good idea? TBH, I think it would. I would not favour alternatives. First you have the situation which currently obtains continuing so to do. USING ISIL as an example, that is an awful thought. And clearly the other option of it getting worse, that is also hideous.
But the idea of joining one world religion would be unpleasant. To give up your identity, your special place in the world, as a unique child of God, is illogical. Worshipping God the Lutheran way is special, and should be encouraged, not forced to submerge into bland ALL-ness. The same is true of Muslim, or Hindu, or Jewish, etc ways of worship.
So, that's pretty much where I sit on the subject.
-
God willing it will sooner or later disappear entirely.
-
God willing it will sooner or later disappear entirely.
Highly unlikely. Like I said, statistics indicate that the overall amount of Atheists are DEcreasing in the world population as a whole. By 2050, the number of them will be higher in the US and Western Europe, but lower worldwide. This was just in the Huffpost, which is not known as being favourable toward religion by ANY stretch of the imagination.
-
God willing it will sooner or later disappear entirely.
Highly unlikely. Like I said, statistics indicate that the overall amount of Atheists are DEcreasing in the world population as a whole. By 2050, the number of them will be higher in the US and Western Europe, but lower worldwide. This was just in the Huffpost, which is not known as being favourable toward religion by ANY stretch of the imagination.
Aw shucks. :(
-
I don't know.
God damn Illuminati trying to make the world has been "one nation, one state , one language, one religion" but we resist it for save the differences. because God don't want us be same. If he do, all the same language , religion, color , type was created in the belief and thought . But he didn't so we should to resist this plan. All of others possible but my choice about the question is "I do not know". Because it is not certain who win. They are in a position more advantageous but i believe and hope we'll do. Because God decides who will win. Other things are temporary but his choice is certain.
-
Evidence suggests that religions will rise and religions will fall. Some larger sects will schism, some smaller sects will re-unite. The geographical spread of religions will change and there will continue to be a minority of nonbelievers under differing degrees of persecution around the world. In the tens of thousands of years we've had formal religions, various sects have claimed to have unifying creeds, but none have been successful.
Personally, I am inclined to think that something resembling a World Scripture will almost certainly be created, probably very skillfully. It will find a way to blend the various stories of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and many other religious narratives in such manner that they flow smoothly. It will also find a way to distill the morality of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Analects of Confucius, and others harmonised and forming a smooth, clear edifice for one to observe.
Unlikely, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. can't even agree on a World Scripture of their own faiths. Hinduism isn't even one religion, it's an umbrella faith with thousands of different permutations and religious scripts.
-
I don't know.
God damn Illuminati trying to make the world has been "one nation, one state , one language, one religion" but we resist it for save the differences. because God don't want us be same. If he do, all the same language , religion, color , type was created in the belief and thought . But he didn't so we should to resist this plan. All of others possible but my choice about the question is "I do not know". Because it is not certain who win. They are in a position more advantageous but i believe and hope we'll do. Because God decides who will win. Other things are temporary but his choice is certain.
But God DID want us to be the same.
He only made 2 people, one of which was a female version of the guy.
He also wanted everyone to follow him and it was only when we worked together to make the tower of Babel did God make other languages to keep us from doing something like that again.
-
You make some interesting points. I wish to take them one by one, as you seem to have thought this through rather intelligently, unlike many of the shrill responses that one gets in a thread like this, both from Believers (of one persuasion or other) and Atheists.
Evidence suggests that religions will rise and religions will fall. Some larger sects will schism, some smaller sects will re-unite. The geographical spread of religions will change and there will continue to be a minority of nonbelievers under differing degrees of persecution around the world. In the tens of thousands of years we've had formal religions, various sects have claimed to have unifying creeds, but none have been successful.
This is an interesting point. Christianity is a case in point. Even within Lutheranism, there are schisms a-plenty, primarily based on two things: (1), Liberal v. Conservative, and (2), ethnicity. Now the ethnic part isn't so much a schism, really. For example, ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod) is in Communion and Altar Fellowship with WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod). The first is basically a bunch of Norwegians around Minnesota, and the second a bunch of Germans in Wisconsin. They agree with each other in Faith, but originally worshipped in different languages and in different places. Hence, two Churches.
The first issue is much more of a schism. When ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) decided in 2009 to ordain partnered homosexual persons and marry them, numerous groups broke away and formed their own groups of Churches, the largest in my area being LCMC (Lutheran Congregations for Missions in Christ). They also took the largest ELCA parish in the city along with them. So I do see your point here.
Personally, I am inclined to think that something resembling a World Scripture will almost certainly be created, probably very skillfully. It will find a way to blend the various stories of Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and many other religious narratives in such manner that they flow smoothly. It will also find a way to distill the morality of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Analects of Confucius, and others harmonised and forming a smooth, clear edifice for one to observe.
Unlikely, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc. can't even agree on a World Scripture of their own faiths. Hinduism isn't even one religion, it's an umbrella faith with thousands of different permutations and religious scripts.
I am not sure I entirely agree with you on this one. Muslims all agree that the Holy Qur'an is Scripture. Now, they may disagree on what constitutes valid Haadith, but that is a bit secondary. Jews all agree that the Hebrew Bible is indeed the Scripture of their Faith. They may vary as to how to interpret it, but there is no disagreement on what it is. Christians do disagree on the contents of the Old Testament, with the Catholics accepting extra books that the Protestants do not, and the Orthodox accepting one or two more, and the Ethiopian Church accepting still more. But they all agree on the New Testament, which, lets be honest, is more central to the Christian message. They may again, differ as to how to preach the message, but the content...
Hinduism does get a bit odd. I won't dispute with you that there are a shit-ton of varying texts of varying degrees of importance to different Hindus. And what exactly is a Hindu? Some people count Jains as Hindus. There are even Buddhists in India who are counted as Hindu.
I think that if a Commission of Ecumenical Translators ever DID meet with the intentions of creating a world Scripture such as the Orange Catholic Bible, it would have to choose wisely from all the Scriptures that are validated by people everywhere. It would not be able to restrict itself to those that only the majority, whatever the Hell that is, use. I mean, Hinduism is the world's 3rd largest religion. Even though they as a group do not all accept the same texts, there are some that are common, more or less, to them as a group. I do think it could be done. As to whether it will be, well, that is another matter.
-
And yes, the Censors will have noticed by now who this is, the former Yaakov ben Avraham. I have done two things that have radically changed my life. One, I have joined the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and two, I have become considerably more liberal in some respects. So don't flip your lids and think I am his alt. I am not. I am simply the same person, with some pretty effed up changes in my personal life.
-
The only thing that could come down and enforce a single one-world scripture would be an actual god. I mean, if suddenly an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being came down, you can't really disagree with its rules, well, not without being smited.
-
And yes, the Censors will have noticed by now who this is, the former Yaakov ben Avraham. I have done two things that have radically changed my life. One, I have joined the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, and two, I have become considerably more liberal in some respects. So don't flip your lids and think I am his alt. I am not. I am simply the same person, with some pretty effed up changes in my personal life.
So do you eat pork now?
-
Oy gevalt, I can't believe we lost another one! Feh, I could just plotz!
-
Oy Vey!
-
Yes, I do occasionally eat some kinds of pork although certain kinds I find I cannot stomach. Pork chops are REVOLTING!
-
So what's the reason for the big change?
-
Obviously he got bored with one persona so he decided to go with another.
-
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.
-
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.
Wow, Saddam, I didn't realize that you're literally yaakov.
Oh, haha, wait you're doing that thing where you answer questions directed at other people even though you have no actual idea what the answer really is. No opportunity to inject your baseless opinion goes to waste in these forums.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
;D 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.