Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Uniting Religions
I don't think a one world religion is possible anytime in the near future. I wish that the reality of things wasn't so nuanced and that societies with closed, rigid ideologies didn't exist and that people all agreed on truth, whatever that may be, but that's not how it works. I think there should be a movement, though, that has a broad enough, yet truthful, credo that accepts all religions, as long as they agree that love, empathy, and understanding for all of humanity is a high ideal, whether they be Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, whatever. As long as adherents believe in love and compassion, then they should be friends and congregate with each other or at least hold yearly conferences. It should be like a family reunion for fellow humans. Another tenant should be that isolation and exclusivity to one's own culture and religious group only breeds ignorance and lack of understanding about other people in the world. It should also be highly democratic. Legislation and how donations should be used in such an organization should all be done through internet polling for paying members or at least take it into consideration. Humanitarian projects should also be a main goal. If you believe true Islam or true Christianity or true Judaism is about love, unity, peace, then you should join with everyone else who believes the same thing about their religion or beliefs, even if its a different ideology from what you believe.
0
Comments
I don't think that will happen in 10 lifetimes.
In metta,
Raven
This is what causes divisions amongst religions , nations, cultures and people, in the first place.
isn't it?
It doesn't help resolve anything, in my opinion :bowdown:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism
Don't you think?
The Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, and some other minority religions live together harmoniously and visit each others temple.
In Malaysia (a multi cultural country) I visit hindu shrines, taoist temples, and other holy places and make some offering and doesn't feel weird a bit at all. It's natural. I don't even have to make myself to develop a sense of respect because it's already there naturally.
No one needs to belittle or condemn others. Hindus bring offerings to Buddhist temple, Buddhists visiting Taoist temple etc. it flows so naturally.
That's in the east, the place I live.
I'm not sure why monotheist religion like Christianity and Islam can't mingle well with other religions.... such as in Pattaya, India, and China (boxer rebellion).
"Special, Special!! Try it, for free!" :-) better than "ricesoup like ever, ricesoup...!"
Mmmmh... what is that? I dont know, but it is good.
It seems that nondualistic practises easily absorb dualistic ones, but that implies that dualism isn't the ultimate nature of reality--case in point: Hinduism. If you're a really faithful dualist can there ever be world religious tolerance?
I ask myself this often, I tried so hard to bridge the gap to get my girlfriend's parents to accept my beliefs. I realised there is a gap that cannot be breached. The dualistic / nondualistic divide.
Mahatma Gandhi-shot
Martin Luther King-shot
Am I seeing a pattern here or just being paranoid.
Trying to unite people =getting shot.
As there is no reason for it! That is the way you can live in peace. You got the point! That is the meaning of the Buddhadhamma.
sincerely john
And there is no possible reason for one world religion. We just would get boring and easily walk back to our pc's or ipods. Its like getting noddle soup all the day. It will feed you, but variety keeps it alive.
To step out of religion that is what we call the Buddhadharma :-) also here are many different dishes. Try it!
"While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all others, nor do I seek a new 'world religion'. All the different religions of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world civilization. Our human minds, being of different calibre and disposition, need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food. Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well. Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world's religions to suit the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions of individual human beings."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ak5K4M3X2c&NR=1
Buddhism may point back to "precarving" and that's what is EPIC about it..
I find too much human influence and meddling (and "need") in all the other religions (excluding Lao Tzu)
We may be looking in different places and in different ways, yet ultimately i'd like to think that we are all in search of the same thing: love, compassion, harmony.
Tenzin Gyatso (a.k.a., the 14th Dalai Lama) wrote a great op-ed piece which i think brings it all together...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25gyatso.html
Simple national laws will prevent anyone infringing on the rights of others - prohibition of violence, prohibition of hate-speeching, prohibition of helping in planning or committing violent crimes or hate-crimes, prohibition of discriminating behavior based on ethnic, religious, political, social or sexual heritage or preference (and possibly more)..
I think this is already a fact in most of the modern world..
What a world we would be living in if all people did follow "natural law." However, in many ways, people are more likely to apply "human laws" to "natural law," and this has led us to our current situation.
As Pema Chodron said in her piece on the 6 forms of loneliness, we humans are more consumed with seeking resolution, rather than the "middle way."
By bridging the gap between religions or lack thereof, we are not necessarily forming unison. I'd like to think that we are establishing tolerance, or as you put it, respect, for one another as well as for each other's individual belief system.
If more individuals did this, i think (or woud like to hope) that there would be more tolerance and respect of those different from ourselves.
Being a cynic or realist (you decide), I'm prone to thinking that there are only "natural laws" and that humans are living by these already. In this sense I think that was is, is what should be - but that doesn't mean it can't be changed to something better.
It is perfectly possible for one person to realize a more considerate way of living than the one another is following, but neither of them has the "right" solution. They only have different ways of living, one being skillful, the other being unskilful - we would say.
Ultimately we can only hope that the most skillful lifestyles will be more popular in the future, making this world a peaceful place for everyone (and that, I'm also prone to thinking, will require the death of some religions - from abrahamistic god-religions to capitalism).
Well, i have to admit that that is an interesting view point: "Human law" is a part of "natural law." I cannot really disagree with you, so i guess i would call you more of a realist than anything else.
"It is perfectly possible for one person to realize a more considerate way of living than the one another is following, but neither of them has the "right" solution. They only have different ways of living, one being skillful, the other being unskilful - we would say."
In response to this, i'd have to say that the more considerate (aka more skillful) would be the "right" solution. You can have a person who is successful in doing rather "wrong" actions, which could lead to the end of civilization as we know it. I suppose you would say that even this would be "natural." And even though we may not be a part of it, that in itself is following what happens "naturally."
And if we as a race do not continue to exist, that is just the way of life. Life in itself will continue, even though we may not be a part of it.
That being said, shouldn't we, as a society, then do anything to help our chances to survive? Or can we only "hope" that the more considerate will be the more successful?
I think we can and should do what we can to help to steer the future generation to do the "right" thing. I agree that some people may take that to the extremes, but i'd like to think that there is more that we can do other than just "hope."
So, i guess on this point, i disagree with you, and call you more of a cynic.
However you have raised an interesting point. What can we do now to help the future or our world to become a peaceful place for eveyone. I guess this would be like Darwin's survival of the fittest, where the fittest would be the more "skillful" lifestyles, as you would say.
Personally, i have no problem with the death of some Abrahamistic religions and/or capitalism, some other people might. However, i think there is some good that can be found in everything, and this is why i think it is up to us, the individuals of all backgrounds and faiths, to work on finding "common ground" among us all.
And perhaps this is what you mean by "natural law."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/opinion/25gyatso.html
It is a very interesting piece that focuses on the "common ground" of all major faiths... Basically, it says the same thing you did...
In order to judge something "right" or "wrong" you have to be subjective. In order to accept something as "always right" or "objectively right" (an oxymoron in my world) you have to believe in some kind of super-entity who creates the rules - thereby deciding right and wrong. I don't see any such entity and as a consequence all actions are right, and all actions are wrong - the apposite clause and the relative clause equals out, and you end up with just "action".
Now, assuming that creatures want happiness and shun suffering we choose to act in a skillful way - we think of this as more considerate (than unskillfulness). The masochist would call it more boring.
@wilfred
Not to make a mess out of this discussion, but I don't think you're right.
All religions answer the same basic questions - just like all political ideologies. No one would ever think that fascism and liberalism is basically the same though, and yet both ensure a functioning society which has an economy, social system, work force arrangement, production facilities, government and so on.
When different systems follow a similar formula independent of culture, it's not a sign of similarity in the systems but in the setup of humans. Just like a pizza dough is the same recipe as the one which you make white bread of - or buns, or crumbs for your breaded steak..