Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to A new world religion - what would it look like?
Gomedome, I should have been more explicit--
I meant, the truest belief is probably that which can accomodate the most other belief systems, not the most people.
posted by
Ciel
on December 16, 2006 at 11:38 PM
| link to this | reply
well, I opened a Unitarian church service at one time
performing THE BOXER, by Paul Simon
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 14, 2006 at 2:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Ciel - were it not for mankind's history of building religious truth via
consensus, coercion and control, I would agree with you when you say this: "It has always seemed reasonable to me that the vision that includes the most is the closest to the truth." Certainly there are many fringe beliefs that are held by small numbers of people that get further and further away from beliefs held by the majority. Some venturing into the realm of crazy.
When you say the following: "As to those who don't experience it... who deny it utterly... I'm sure they have their reasons. It may be that they have rejected the content because they hate the packaging." For some this may well be the reason that they reject all things spiritual, religious beliefs or anything related to religion but there are many more reasons. Some as equally valid as the reasons that people do experience and believe these things.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 12:54 PM
| link to this | reply
FreeManWalking - we are now talking about 2 different things
I based my first reply to you on this potion of your comment: "A good Methodist Church, with a pipe organ playing a piece by Bach and a good sermon about the love of God is the best religion I have found. Its inspiring." . . . inspiring to some, I have no doubt.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 12:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Regarding inclusive vs exculsivity --
It has always seemed reasonable to me that the vision that includes the most is the closest to the truth. It has been one of the basic requirements of my own concept of the Big Picture: it has to have room in it even for what I don't like, understand, or accept.
I think the only thing that comes with the human package is the wiring to experience the spiritual-- the rest is personal and cultural interpretation, and therefore, outside the parameters of a single world religion.
As to those who don't experience it... who deny it utterly... I'm sure they have their reasons. It may be that they have rejected the content because they hate the packaging.
posted by
Ciel
on December 14, 2006 at 11:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome - I would argue that non-belief doesn't preclude someone from
being a UNitarian. Whatever the historic platform of the church may be I observed a group of people of felt the need for a common place to look within in a loosely ceremonial type way. I don't know what they were looking at.
posted by
FreeManWalking
on December 14, 2006 at 11:02 AM
| link to this | reply
FreeManWalking - it may be inspiring for those who believe in God
But what about those who do not? Where I am not actually preaching anything, I am underscoring this very point. All attempts at being all inclusive have the criteria of belief in a supreme being which immediately excludes all non believers.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 7:30 AM
| link to this | reply
gomedome - the closest thing I've seen to what you preach are Unitarians.
I attended a Unitarian church in Athens, GA a few times. They used Imagine by John Lennon as the prelude and we meditated in a silent moment about the First Amendment. Other times people just stood up and talked about their week.
On the walls were crosses, stars of david, and cresents. Outside the plain windows were trees. It wasn't inspiring.
A good Methodist Church, with a pipe organ playing a piece by Bach and a good sermon about the love of God is the best religion I have found. Its inspiring.
posted by
FreeManWalking
on December 14, 2006 at 7:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Ciel - the recent trend away from organized religion carries with it a lot
of the sentiments you express.
Within the restrictive confines of religion there is much in the way of superfluous trappings, imposed conformity and societal pressure to maintain these things. The shift from organized religion, though decried by those who would want to maintain these institutions, may eventualy bode well for the human race.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 7:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - that's been done in the past without much success
The Baha'i come to mind. The failing point being that while they attempt to include all persons from all religions, they have one criteria in that all members must believe in God. This makes them exclusive in the sense that all other religions are. I simply cannot believe that human beings will ever willingly adopt a homogenized set of religious beliefs.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 7:01 AM
| link to this | reply
SuccessWarrior - as for it being nice to see - we must be realists
Any worthy ideal, even if unattainable can still be set as a goal and used as a philosophical framework as long as it does not attempt to redefine human nature. For example, we can talk about loving our neighbors all we want but at the end of the day, human beings do not love their neighbors. To do so they must force themselves to act in a manner that is outside of their natural behavior. (maybe that's why this ideal is such a dismal failure) . . . The notions of tolerance and respect for others on the other hand, are self serving in that these things are what we all demand and are entitled to. Human nature will allow members of our species to advance a self serving ideal. It only takes societal conditioning and time.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 6:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Talion - I agree: "respect and/or tolerance is beyond humanity at this
at this point in our history."
I'm also not big on beginning sentences with "if we could all only....." ...Human nature is what it is, a constant that determines the behaviour of all members of our species. What I am suggesting is that; as this planet becomes more crowded, the human race will eventually be forced to adopt philosophies that do not have us segregating ourselves into religious divisions. Hopefully this planet will not become one huge charcoal briquette before we reach that point.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 6:40 AM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - "all inclusive" in this instance is implied to be of a
philisophical nature and benigh, not proactive.
The aspects of inclusion are more in the conditioning of how people think rather than in establishing a membership criteria or a set of inclusion guidelines. I am not suggesting that the responsibilities we all have as members of society be over ruled to establish a new religion. There will always be people that through their own actions make themselves outcasts from society and there will always be the cold hard truth that some people will never adopt or subscribe to a progressive philosophy.
posted by
gomedome
on December 14, 2006 at 6:29 AM
| link to this | reply
GOMEDOME
I DOUBT THAT YOU REALLY MEAN THAT THIS NEW WORLD RELIGION SHOULD BE
ALL-INCLUSIVE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, DO YOU? WHAT ABOUT COLD-BLOODIED KILLERS, FOR INSTANCE, TOTALLY WITHOUT REMORSE FOR THEIR CRIMES, OR CHILD MOLESTERS? WHAT ABOUT OTHERS WHO DO NOT
WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN ANYTHING "RELIGIOUS" AT ALL? SHOULD WE INSIST THAT THEY,
AGAINST THEIR OWN WISHES, BE INCLUDED?
posted by
GEPRUITT
on December 14, 2006 at 3:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Great topic, Gomedome!
The key, I think, is to trim down to what religion is, and drop what it does not need to be.
I define religion as the organized celebration of spirit. It doesn't need to be anything but that, the one element that is true of the human nature--the sense of there being something more to us, to the universe, than the physical. All the rest is extraneous cultural stuff.
Sure, let's get together and celebrate that one thing, even just the possibilty of it, to include those who are not sure...
posted by
Ciel
on December 13, 2006 at 5:12 PM
| link to this | reply
you forgot or did i read too fast)
take the precepts that all religions have in common and make those the precepts of the new religion.
let the old religions have those that are theirs exclusively and are detrimental to humankind. they can keep them -- just don't foist them on everybody else.
other than that i think i'll blog
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 13, 2006 at 2:13 PM
| link to this | reply
It would be nice to see happen though, Talion, or even a step closer.
posted by
SuccessWarrior
on December 13, 2006 at 2:12 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
Even respect and/or tolerance is beyond humanity at this point in our history. It's still might makes right and the majority rules. One group is always going to feel the need to stand taller by stepping on the neck of another group. I sincerely hope we as a species can get beyond it, but it certainly won't be in my lifetime.
posted by
Talion
on December 13, 2006 at 1:39 PM
| link to this | reply