| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
Dewey
Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 350
Location: California
|
Post: #16  Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:49 pm Post subject: Re: Do we need a new global religion? |
  |
|
|
| haribol acharya wrote: |
| Now I feel that we need a new religion and that will select only virtues from all religious texts. And this will help us to forge peace and order in our world |
Fundamentalism is defined variously and the term is more often used to accuse than to proclaim (as is demonstrated in the opening post). So it’s hard to know for sure that it is increasing, by how much, and where. But I share haribol acharya’s feeling that it is growing – though probably not in the Christian Catholic religion.
But on what basis could we ever edit the sacred texts of all or the main religions and come up with a unified text shorn of all the “toxic” exhortations and commands? That is tantamount to expecting that we can unify the world’s diverse cultures and moral standards – a task far beyond our desires and capabilities so far. We argue every day about what “evil” is and what “good” is. I am good, so you must be bad, etc., etc., ad nauseam!
Furthermore – and this is admittedly the biased remark of an anti-religionist – I don’t think religions are born out of unselfish love and desire for peace and order in our world.
Last edited by Dewey on Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 2756
|
| Post: #17 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject: Re: Do we need a new global religion? |
|
|
|
| Dewey wrote: |
Furthermore – and this is admittedly the biased remark of an anti-religionist – I don’t think religions are born out of unselfish love and desire for peace and order in our world. |
Dear Dewey!
If you just added one syllable, you wd show yourself that you can and so others can too because your remark wd be remarkable for its Bias of Love!
Furthermore – and this is admittedly the biased remark of an anti-religionist – I don’t think religions are born out of unself-hat-ish love and desire for peace and order in our world. 
I am just reminding you ti keep in mind that we can't do anything without self.
So the problem is not selfishness but self-hate-ishness or selfhatishness.
NB: How similar it is to selfishness! This is why it is so easy for us to mix them up! As it is easy to mix up being content with being complacent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SpiralsHappen
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 10
|
| Post: #18 Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Don't settle for anything less then Macrobiotics. The foundation to all religions of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 403
|
| Post: #19 Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| SpiralsHappen wrote: |
| Don't settle for anything less then Macrobiotics. The foundation to all religions of the world. |
Should start a thread. 
---------------
Here's something new for you.. Designing a Worthy Religion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 47
|
| Post: #20 Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I don't really think what we need is a new religion. What we need is individuals focused on a personal spiritual path that does not depend on external teachings. Creating a new religion is beside the point and can only get us so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2809
|
| Post: #21 Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Rasputin's call for people to be on individual new spiritual paths would mean more to me if I knew what R meant by 'spiritual'.
A new religion would be good if religare were attended to so that people were bound together in a common purpose that serves life instead of death, that serves love instead of fear.It would not matter if the religious observances were reading from a book, acting out a public ritual, weeping and speaking in tongues, sacred dancing, baptising, singing sacred music, listening to sacred music either alone or in company, painting or looking at relgious pictures,or listening to poets, or praying either alone or in company.I am not so keen on some priest preaching at me.
These are all cultural behaviours that are good or bad depending upon whether the behaviours are aimed at inspiring fear and separation , or inspiring love and understanding.
A religion is usually taken over by war leaders when a nation is threatened or when the war leader wants to be aggressive. For this I refer you , if I may, to a recent post in the 'Patriotism' discussion.
The way in which a unifying world class religion will come about is through liberal education for all.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 403
|
| Post: #22 Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2009 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| A religion is usually taken over by war leaders when a nation is threatened or when the war leader wants to be aggressive. |
Then the new religion will have to be one that cannot by its nature or structure be hijacked or taken over by warring politicians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 47
|
| Post: #23 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Spirituality: getting in touch with essence. The specifics don't matter because they can vary according to individual and culture and get to the same point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2809
|
| Post: #24 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| James S Saint wrote: |
| Belinda wrote: |
| A religion is usually taken over by war leaders when a nation is threatened or when the war leader wants to be aggressive. |
Then the new religion will have to be one that cannot by its nature or structure be hijacked or taken over by warring politicians. |
This new religion would therefore be one that has no control from a holy book nor control from a priestly hierarchy? It would be a democratic religion that relies on either mystical experience of the individuals or educated wisdom of the individuals, or both.
********** ***********
Rasputin I still don't understand what you mean by 'spiritual'. I thought that Buddhists dont believe in essences.Please bear with me, I am not arguing against you here, I simply seek to understand.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James S Saint
Joined: 14 Oct 2009
Posts: 403
|
| Post: #25 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
| This new religion would therefore be one that has no control from a holy book nor control from a priestly hierarchy? |
Oh if you get rid of books, you have nothing but gossip. You seriously need books, just a different kind of book, a living book with a really, really good memory of its past.
| Belinda wrote: |
| It would be a democratic religion that relies on either mystical experience of the individuals or educated wisdom of the individuals, or both. |
Most definitely. But with their own living book. That's "living" as in documenting and updating, but never forgetting - learning, growing.
The people must each understand for themselves why they do what they do, not merely be led by the nose by the few elite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rasputin
Joined: 30 Nov 2009
Posts: 47
|
| Post: #26 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda...from a Buddhist perspective, you're right, there are no essences. There is only one essence, and everything is part of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Superiorr
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Posts: 14
|
| Post: #27 Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| james1951 wrote: |
| The golden rule tells us the Truth of what we should do. |
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Surely, you acknowledge that takes two of the same people to work? Yet not everyone is the same. One person might like to, say, get kissed by a complete stranger at any given time. According to your rule, which tells us what to do in all situations, it would be right for that man to walk up to anyone and kiss them?
Same goes for every other thing that humans differ in.
Last edited by Superiorr on Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 2756
|
| Post: #28 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Superiorr wrote: |
| james1951 wrote: |
| The golden rule tells us the Truth of what we should do. |
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Surely, you acknowledge that takes two of the same people to work? |
Hi Superiorr,
The Golden Rule only requires one person to be in Love for it to work -- since The GR is based on Unconditional Love which only requires one person loving herself or herself unconditionally.
Example:
I don't need you to love me for me to love you since I love myself as you and love you as myself and so love you esepcially when you hate me or don't love me--which wd be because you hate or don't love yourself as me.
You are actually loving me the same way too but you are also mixing your self-Love up with self-Hate.
Application:
I love myself as kissed and unkissed, hugged and unhugged, and thus love myself under both opposite conditions or unconditionally: so I wd still love the person whom I did NOT want to kiss nor hug me.
She wd also love me if she also loved those who did not want to be kissed nor hugged by her.
Please feel free to ask questions or make further objections, Superiorr.
By the way, I don't mind addressing you as Superiorr or as my superior --simply because I also love myself as inferior and as superior! . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 2809
|
| Post: #29 Posted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
James S Saint:(Dec 06 10.01 AM )okay to all of that
********* *********
Ape#28 too. Okay with all that.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Superiorr
Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Posts: 14
|
| Post: #30 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| ape wrote: |
| Superiorr wrote: |
| james1951 wrote: |
| The golden rule tells us the Truth of what we should do. |
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Surely, you acknowledge that takes two of the same people to work? |
Hi Superiorr,
The Golden Rule only requires one person to be in Love for it to work -- since The GR is based on Unconditional Love which only requires one person loving herself or herself unconditionally.
Example:
I don't need you to love me for me to love you since I love myself as you and love you as myself and so love you esepcially when you hate me or don't love me--which wd be because you hate or don't love yourself as me.
You are actually loving me the same way too but you are also mixing your self-Love up with self-Hate.
Application:
I love myself as kissed and unkissed, hugged and unhugged, and thus love myself under both opposite conditions or unconditionally: so I wd still love the person whom I did NOT want to kiss nor hug me.
She wd also love me if she also loved those who did not want to be kissed nor hugged by her.
Please feel free to ask questions or make further objections, Superiorr.
By the way, I don't mind addressing you as Superiorr or as my superior --simply because I also love myself as inferior and as superior! . |
That just makes no sense to me at all... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
